Guest guest Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 In a message dated 5/21/2004 2:37:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, Pedsie2 writes: Let me begging by saying I don't consider myself a materialist; I don't fall for any ism, If I have an agenda is to be free from any straight-jacket conceptuality. Of course, I have to depend on concepts to communicate with others, and to solve practical problems. My goal here is to share this notion that concepts hide the unknown by given the illusion they can reveal it, and explain it, the more we explain and clarify, the more we hide that we try to reveal. The brain is all that can be known. The brain is the organ of knowledge, there can be no knowledge without the brain. Whatever we perceive, experience and know is a reflection in the brain. This doesn't mean that the brain is all there is. That would be a ridiculous statement. Outside the brain is the unknown. The unknown doesn't need neither knowledge, nor consciousness. It is above both. This doesn't mean the unknown is not intelligent, in the sense, that it finds the most direct and simple way to effect change without a reasoning mechanism. The self that tries to understand and to survive is a product of the brain. The brain is the mirror of the unknown. The mirror has developed a ghost image called " I. " This ghost image sees the unknown as the 'other.' An alien world that it most conquer to survive. The 'I " feeling and its desire to survive both are illusory, but in the service of this illusion all types of heavenly bodies and religious concepts are invented. The division between matter and spirit is another illusion of the ghost image. There is no matter and no spirit all is one. Ps. For old fogies who can't keep members pseudo identities straight, I am Pete. AKA seesaw, AKA cerosoul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > In a message dated 5/21/2004 2:37:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, Pedsie2 writes: > Let me begging by saying I don't consider myself > a materialist; I don't fall for any ism, If I have an > agenda is to be free from any straight-jacket > conceptuality. Of course, I have to depend on > concepts to communicate with others, and to > solve practical problems. My goal here is to > share this notion that concepts hide the unknown > by given the illusion they can reveal it, and explain it, > the more we explain and clarify, the more we hide > that we try to reveal. > > The brain is all that can be known. The brain is the > organ of knowledge, there can be no knowledge > without the brain. Whatever we perceive, experience > and know is a reflection in the brain. This doesn't mean > that the brain is all there is. That would be a ridiculous > statement. Outside the brain is the unknown. The unknown > doesn't need neither knowledge, nor consciousness. It > is above both. This doesn't mean the unknown is not > intelligent, in the sense, that it finds the most direct and > simple way to effect change without a reasoning mechanism. > > The self that tries to understand and to survive is a product > of the brain. The brain is the mirror of the unknown. The mirror > has developed a ghost image called " I. " This ghost image sees > the unknown as the 'other.' An alien world that it most conquer > to survive. The 'I " feeling and its desire to survive both are illusory, > but in the service of this illusion all types of heavenly bodies and > religious concepts are invented. > > The division between matter and spirit is another illusion of the ghost > image. There is no matter and no spirit all is one. > > Ps. For old fogies who can't keep members pseudo identities straight, I am > Pete. AKA seesaw, AKA cerosoul. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 5/21/2004 2:37:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Pedsie2 writes: > > Let me begging by saying I don't consider myself > > a materialist; I don't fall for any ism, If I have an > > agenda is to be free from any straight-jacket > > conceptuality. Of course, I have to depend on > > concepts to communicate with others, and to > > solve practical problems. My goal here is to > > share this notion that concepts hide the unknown > > by given the illusion they can reveal it, and explain it, > > the more we explain and clarify, the more we hide > > that we try to reveal. > > > > The brain is all that can be known. The brain is the > > organ of knowledge, there can be no knowledge > > without the brain. Whatever we perceive, experience > > and know is a reflection in the brain. This doesn't mean > > that the brain is all there is. That would be a ridiculous > > statement. Outside the brain is the unknown. The unknown > > doesn't need neither knowledge, nor consciousness. It > > is above both. This doesn't mean the unknown is not > > intelligent, in the sense, that it finds the most direct and > > simple way to effect change without a reasoning mechanism. > > > > The self that tries to understand and to survive is a product > > of the brain. The brain is the mirror of the unknown. The mirror > > has developed a ghost image called " I. " This ghost image sees > > the unknown as the 'other.' An alien world that it most conquer > > to survive. The 'I " feeling and its desire to survive both are > illusory, > > but in the service of this illusion all types of heavenly bodies and > > religious concepts are invented. > > > > The division between matter and spirit is another illusion of the > ghost > > image. There is no matter and no spirit all is one. > > > > Ps. For old fogies who can't keep members pseudo identities > straight, I am > > Pete. AKA seesaw, AKA cerosoul. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2004 Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/21/2004 2:37:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Pedsie2 writes: > > > Let me begging by saying I don't consider myself > > > a materialist; I don't fall for any ism, If I have an > > > agenda is to be free from any straight-jacket > > > conceptuality. Of course, I have to depend on > > > concepts to communicate with others, and to > > > solve practical problems. My goal here is to > > > share this notion that concepts hide the unknown > > > by given the illusion they can reveal it, and explain it, > > > the more we explain and clarify, the more we hide > > > that we try to reveal. > > > > > > The brain is all that can be known. The brain is the > > > organ of knowledge, there can be no knowledge > > > without the brain. Whatever we perceive, experience > > > and know is a reflection in the brain. This doesn't mean > > > that the brain is all there is. That would be a ridiculous > > > statement. Outside the brain is the unknown. The unknown > > > doesn't need neither knowledge, nor consciousness. It > > > is above both. This doesn't mean the unknown is not > > > intelligent, in the sense, that it finds the most direct and > > > simple way to effect change without a reasoning mechanism. > > > > > > The self that tries to understand and to survive is a product > > > of the brain. The brain is the mirror of the unknown. The mirror > > > has developed a ghost image called " I. " This ghost image sees > > > the unknown as the 'other.' An alien world that it most conquer > > > to survive. The 'I " feeling and its desire to survive both are > > illusory, > > > but in the service of this illusion all types of heavenly bodies > and > > > religious concepts are invented. > > > > > > The division between matter and spirit is another illusion of the > > ghost > > > image. There is no matter and no spirit all is one. > > > > > > Ps. For old fogies who can't keep members pseudo identities > > straight, I am > > > Pete. AKA seesaw, AKA cerosoul. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2004 Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 > > Hi Pete, > > If all is one, then every knowledge is only illusionary fragments > within wholeness. So, yes, all explanations are only a continuing of > the fragmentation. But we can use the fragments to point to the > whole. Fragments are endless in appearance but wholeness is one > without the second. The 'I' is a fragment, but as all fragments > the 'I' is only an appearance in what is. And what is is one > wholeness. Since the 'I' can never be separate from wholeness in a > real sense, the fears observed by an individual 'I' is sheer illusion. > > /AL Yes. Why do you bring fear up? Are you afraid at the moment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2004 Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Pete, > > > > If all is one, then every knowledge is only illusionary fragments > > within wholeness. So, yes, all explanations are only a continuing > of > > the fragmentation. But we can use the fragments to point to the > > whole. Fragments are endless in appearance but wholeness is one > > without the second. The 'I' is a fragment, but as all fragments > > the 'I' is only an appearance in what is. And what is is one > > wholeness. Since the 'I' can never be separate from wholeness in a > > real sense, the fears observed by an individual 'I' is sheer > illusion. > > > > /AL > > Yes. Why do you bring fear up? Are you afraid at the moment? O yes. I feel like I am *made* of fear. It feels like the 'I' in me is a fear-based construct. I suspect that this whole world is a fear- based construct. It could be that this world is only a fragmented view in the One Consciousness. The fall of humankind: fragmentation of the One resulting in fear. If you look at it you will find that every thought about " I must do this or that " is a fear-based construct. It is about a vulnerable little " me " that needs to be protected from suffering in the future. " I must see to it that my reputation stays intact " - Fear. " I must not make a fool of myself " - Fear. " I must produce a good result, so that I can keep my job " - Fear. " I must eat so and so and do this and that exercise in order to stay in shape " - Fear. " I wonder what he or she at the office think of me " - Fear. " I must treat these people with compassion and respect " - Fear. And on and on and on... Normally, what people consider to be fearless thoughts are not fearless at all when scrutinized in the light of the " me " . Many, many thoughts are about the protection of the " me " and are therefore fear- based constructs. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2004 Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 --- > > > > Yes. Why do you bring fear up? Are you afraid at the moment? > > O yes. I feel like I am *made* of fear. It feels like the 'I' in me > is a fear-based construct. I suspect that this whole world is a fear- > based construct. It could be that this world is only a fragmented > view in the One Consciousness. The fall of humankind: fragmentation > of the One resulting in fear. > > If you look at it you will find that every thought about " I must do > this or that " is a fear-based construct. It is about a vulnerable > little " me " that needs to be protected from suffering in the > future. " I must see to it that my reputation stays intact " - Fear. " I > must not make a fool of myself " - Fear. " I must produce a good > result, so that I can keep my job " - Fear. " I must eat so and so and > do this and that exercise in order to stay in shape " - Fear. " I > wonder what he or she at the office think of me " - Fear. " I must > treat these people with compassion and respect " - Fear. And on and on > and on... > > Normally, what people consider to be fearless thoughts are not > fearless at all when scrutinized in the light of the " me " . Many, many > thoughts are about the protection of the " me " and are therefore fear- > based constructs. How much of the above is just a philosophical view? Is fear for you a health problem? Has fear been robbing the zest out of life for you? > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > --- > > > > > > Yes. Why do you bring fear up? Are you afraid at the moment? > > > > O yes. I feel like I am *made* of fear. It feels like the 'I' in me > > is a fear-based construct. I suspect that this whole world is a > fear- > > based construct. It could be that this world is only a fragmented > > view in the One Consciousness. The fall of humankind: fragmentation > > of the One resulting in fear. > > > > If you look at it you will find that every thought about " I must do > > this or that " is a fear-based construct. It is about a vulnerable > > little " me " that needs to be protected from suffering in the > > future. " I must see to it that my reputation stays intact " - > Fear. " I > > must not make a fool of myself " - Fear. " I must produce a good > > result, so that I can keep my job " - Fear. " I must eat so and so > and > > do this and that exercise in order to stay in shape " - Fear. " I > > wonder what he or she at the office think of me " - Fear. " I must > > treat these people with compassion and respect " - Fear. And on and > on > > and on... > > > > Normally, what people consider to be fearless thoughts are not > > fearless at all when scrutinized in the light of the " me " . Many, > many > > thoughts are about the protection of the " me " and are therefore > fear- > > based constructs. > > How much of the above is just a philosophical view? Is fear for you > a health problem? Has fear been robbing the zest out of life for you? Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear has to do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says that the Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 > > > > How much of the above is just a philosophical view? Is fear for you > > a health problem? Has fear been robbing the zest out of life for > you? > > Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear has to > do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says that the > Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? > > /AL Hi Al, Let's go over some basics factors, which you might know already: Fear on the physical level is a reaction to danger triggered by dopamine and serotonin. An imbalance of these neurotransmitter could cause the reaction, even when the perception of danger is not present. It's always best to check with a medical doctor who could correct the imbalance with medication. On the mental level, if we perceive a harmless situation as dangerous it would stimulate the release of the above chemicals. So in the case you mention, you have made a philosophical question into a dangerous dilemma. The question of free will is very simple on a practical level: Before performing an action, you must act as if you have free will and give the action proper deliberation and all your attention. Afterwards, you must view the action you just performed as inevitable, and neither feel remorse, nor pride at having perform it. You must view yourself as a small rock falling down the side of a mountain with millions of other rocks. In this avalanche, the little rock has its own unique path, but that path is dictated by the movement of all other rocks around it. Yet your movement is also a factor for others, but there is no one rock which chooses or dictates its own or the overall path of the avalanche. There are no actors and yet, all acts are important and should be performed with care, yet they also are inevitable and free from blame. Best to you, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > How much of the above is just a philosophical view? Is fear for > you > > > a health problem? Has fear been robbing the zest out of life for > > you? > > > > Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear has > to > > do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says that > the > > Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? > > > > /AL > > Hi Al, > > Let's go over some basics factors, which you might know already: > > Fear on the physical level is a reaction to danger triggered by > dopamine and serotonin. An imbalance of these neurotransmitter > could cause the reaction, even when the perception of danger is > not present. It's always best to check with a medical doctor > who could correct the imbalance with medication. > > On the mental level, if we perceive a harmless situation as dangerous > it would stimulate the release of the above chemicals. So in the case > you mention, you have made a philosophical question into a dangerous > dilemma. > > The question of free will is very simple on a practical level: > Before performing an action, you must act as if you have free will > and give the action proper deliberation and all your attention. > Afterwards, you must view the action you just performed as inevitable, > and neither feel remorse, nor pride at having perform it. > > You must view yourself as a small rock falling down the side of a > mountain with millions of other rocks. In this avalanche, the little > rock has its own unique path, but that path is dictated by the > movement of all other rocks around it. Yet your movement is also a > factor for others, but there is no one rock which chooses or dictates > its own or the overall path of the avalanche. There are no actors and > yet, all acts are important and should be performed with care, yet > they also are inevitable and free from blame. > > Best to you, > > Pete Yet, time is in the present moment. The present moment is not in time! Time is the past in form of memories and the future exists only as projections made from those memories. Both past and future therefore exists only *in* this moment. They have no reality independent of the content of the mind. While fear is a real feeling in the moment that can be traced to electro-chemical processes in the brain, the root cause of fear is because of a misconception about time. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How much of the above is just a philosophical view? Is fear for > > you > > > > a health problem? Has fear been robbing the zest out of life > for > > > you? > > > > > > Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear has > > to > > > do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says that > > the > > > Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? > > > > > > /AL > > > > Hi Al, > > > > Let's go over some basics factors, which you might know already: > > > > Fear on the physical level is a reaction to danger triggered by > > dopamine and serotonin. An imbalance of these neurotransmitter > > could cause the reaction, even when the perception of danger is > > not present. It's always best to check with a medical doctor > > who could correct the imbalance with medication. > > > > On the mental level, if we perceive a harmless situation as > dangerous > > it would stimulate the release of the above chemicals. So in the > case > > you mention, you have made a philosophical question into a dangerous > > dilemma. > > > > The question of free will is very simple on a practical level: > > Before performing an action, you must act as if you have free will > > and give the action proper deliberation and all your attention. > > Afterwards, you must view the action you just performed as > inevitable, > > and neither feel remorse, nor pride at having perform it. > > > > You must view yourself as a small rock falling down the side of a > > mountain with millions of other rocks. In this avalanche, the > little > > rock has its own unique path, but that path is dictated by the > > movement of all other rocks around it. Yet your movement is also a > > factor for others, but there is no one rock which chooses or > dictates > > its own or the overall path of the avalanche. There are no actors > and > > yet, all acts are important and should be performed with care, yet > > they also are inevitable and free from blame. > > > > Best to you, > > > > Pete > > Yet, time is in the present moment. The present moment is not in > time! Time is the past in form of memories and the future exists only > as projections made from those memories. Both past and future > therefore exists only *in* this moment. They have no reality > independent of the content of the mind. While fear is a real feeling > in the moment that can be traced to electro-chemical processes in the > brain, the root cause of fear is because of a misconception about > time. > > /AL Yes, Al, I have no disagreement with that, but does that help you with your fear? Are you not still worrying in the present about results in an imagine feture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 - " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman <Nisargadatta > Monday, May 24, 2004 12:06 AM Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear has to > do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says that the > Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? > > /AL ----------------- Hi AL. You don't, except as an intellectual premise. Which might appeal to you or may not. However, what you can do is to ascertain, whether you(as you have defined yourself) is the doer of stuff. Whether that stuff is thinking......... ...... or........... choosing among multitude of thoughts to arrive at a " decision " (which is again a thought) ......... or the external actualization of the " decision " , aka a physical act, series of such acts constituting behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > How much of the above is just a philosophical view? Is fear > for > > > you > > > > > a health problem? Has fear been robbing the zest out of life > > for > > > > you? > > > > > > > > Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear > has > > > to > > > > do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says > that > > > the > > > > Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > Hi Al, > > > > > > Let's go over some basics factors, which you might know already: > > > > > > Fear on the physical level is a reaction to danger triggered by > > > dopamine and serotonin. An imbalance of these neurotransmitter > > > could cause the reaction, even when the perception of danger is > > > not present. It's always best to check with a medical doctor > > > who could correct the imbalance with medication. > > > > > > On the mental level, if we perceive a harmless situation as > > dangerous > > > it would stimulate the release of the above chemicals. So in the > > case > > > you mention, you have made a philosophical question into a > dangerous > > > dilemma. > > > > > > The question of free will is very simple on a practical level: > > > Before performing an action, you must act as if you have free will > > > and give the action proper deliberation and all your attention. > > > Afterwards, you must view the action you just performed as > > inevitable, > > > and neither feel remorse, nor pride at having perform it. > > > > > > You must view yourself as a small rock falling down the side of a > > > mountain with millions of other rocks. In this avalanche, the > > little > > > rock has its own unique path, but that path is dictated by the > > > movement of all other rocks around it. Yet your movement is also > a > > > factor for others, but there is no one rock which chooses or > > dictates > > > its own or the overall path of the avalanche. There are no actors > > and > > > yet, all acts are important and should be performed with care, > yet > > > they also are inevitable and free from blame. > > > > > > Best to you, > > > > > > Pete > > > > Yet, time is in the present moment. The present moment is not in > > time! Time is the past in form of memories and the future exists > only > > as projections made from those memories. Both past and future > > therefore exists only *in* this moment. They have no reality > > independent of the content of the mind. While fear is a real > feeling > > in the moment that can be traced to electro-chemical processes in > the > > brain, the root cause of fear is because of a misconception about > > time. > > > > /AL > > Yes, Al, I have no disagreement with that, but does that help you > with your fear? Are you not still worrying in the present about > results in an imagine feture? I can see my entire past as it is; a thought formation in my mind. This thought-cloud exists in this moment and is thus not a real past. It is a memory trace existing now. From this thought-cloud projections into the future are created. These projections are also just a thought formation. So, there is no past or future in a real sense. But I still have worry and fear in me, but I can see that these feelings are perhaps not needed. So I guess they may melt away leaving the present moment as my foundation. :-) People have three " me " : (1) a past me, (2) a present me, and (3) a future me. But it is only the present me that has any solid existence. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > <Nisargadatta > > Monday, May 24, 2004 12:06 AM > Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > > > > Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear has to > > do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says that the > > Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? > > > > /AL > > > ----------------- > > > Hi AL. > > You don't, except as an intellectual premise. > > Which might appeal to you or may not. > > However, what you can do is to ascertain, whether you(as you have defined yourself) is the doer of stuff. > > Whether that stuff is thinking......... > > ..... or........... choosing among multitude of thoughts to arrive at a " decision " (which is again a thought) ......... > > or the external actualization of the " decision " , aka a physical act, series of such acts constituting behaviour. > Here is an intellectual idea about free will: The mind itself, the awareness of being, exists in the present moment. Everything that the mind observes in the form of the five senses, thoughts and feelings are always the past. When the mind become aware of something, a touch, a taste, a thought e t c, what caused this sensation to be impressed on the mind has already happened. So the mind is only aware of the past. Even the process of choice is seen only from the past. The choice comes *to* awareness, so this means that awareness itself is choiceless. " Desire and anger are objects of the mind, but the mind is not yours, nor ever has been. You are choiceless awareness itself and unchanging -- so live happily. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 15.5 See: http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0004.htm If we look at it closely, we can see that the ego is nothing but a thought/feeling formation. This means that the ego can never be anything but the past. And what is the past? It's dead, isn't it. So the death of the ego is no death at all - the ego is already dead. Or, to be more correct, the ego is a memory trace of both what call the " past " and the projections (which are also from the past) which we call the " future " . Therefore it is more correct to say that the ego is an idea in the mind, and an idea is neither dead or alive. It is just an idea, even if it is a very persistent idea. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 > > > > Yes, Al, I have no disagreement with that, but does that help you > > with your fear? Are you not still worrying in the present about > > results in an imagine feture? > > I can see my entire past as it is; a thought formation in my mind. > This thought-cloud exists in this moment and is thus not a real past. > It is a memory trace existing now. From this thought-cloud > projections into the future are created. These projections are also > just a thought formation. So, there is no past or future in a real > sense. But I still have worry and fear in me, but I can see that > these feelings are perhaps not needed. So I guess they may melt away > leaving the present moment as my foundation. :-) > > People have three " me " : (1) a past me, (2) a present me, and (3) a > future me. But it is only the present me that has any solid existence. > > /AL No Al. That's the problem right there. The me is not solid, it's just another thought. And it can't feel fear or anything else. There is only the sensation of fear... and then a second later a thought evaluating that fear in the context of an illusory me. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, Al, I have no disagreement with that, but does that help you > > > with your fear? Are you not still worrying in the present about > > > results in an imagine feture? > > > > I can see my entire past as it is; a thought formation in my mind. > > This thought-cloud exists in this moment and is thus not a real > past. > > It is a memory trace existing now. From this thought-cloud > > projections into the future are created. These projections are also > > just a thought formation. So, there is no past or future in a real > > sense. But I still have worry and fear in me, but I can see that > > these feelings are perhaps not needed. So I guess they may melt > away > > leaving the present moment as my foundation. :-) > > > > People have three " me " : (1) a past me, (2) a present me, and (3) a > > future me. But it is only the present me that has any solid > existence. > > > > /AL > > No Al. That's the problem right there. The me is not solid, it's just > another thought. And it can't feel fear or anything else. There is > only the sensation of fear... and then a second later a thought > evaluating that fear in the context of an illusory me. > > Pete Quite right! The only solid thing is awareness itself. " I " forgot that. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Al, I have no disagreement with that, but does that help > you > > > > with your fear? Are you not still worrying in the present about > > > > results in an imagine feture? > > > > > > I can see my entire past as it is; a thought formation in my > mind. > > > This thought-cloud exists in this moment and is thus not a real > > past. > > > It is a memory trace existing now. From this thought-cloud > > > projections into the future are created. These projections are > also > > > just a thought formation. So, there is no past or future in a > real > > > sense. But I still have worry and fear in me, but I can see that > > > these feelings are perhaps not needed. So I guess they may melt > > away > > > leaving the present moment as my foundation. :-) > > > > > > People have three " me " : (1) a past me, (2) a present me, and (3) > a > > > future me. But it is only the present me that has any solid > > existence. > > > > > > /AL > > > > No Al. That's the problem right there. The me is not solid, it's > just > > another thought. And it can't feel fear or anything else. There is > > only the sensation of fear... and then a second later a thought > > evaluating that fear in the context of an illusory me. > > > > Pete > > Quite right! The only solid thing is awareness itself. " I " forgot > that. :-) > > /AL Not even that, Al. There are no permanent states, nothing solid. Flux, fluidity, gaseous forms expanding, mutating, vanishing and reapering in emptiness. Nothing to be afraid about, enjoy the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Al, I have no disagreement with that, but does that help > > you > > > > > with your fear? Are you not still worrying in the present > about > > > > > results in an imagine feture? > > > > > > > > I can see my entire past as it is; a thought formation in my > > mind. > > > > This thought-cloud exists in this moment and is thus not a real > > > past. > > > > It is a memory trace existing now. From this thought-cloud > > > > projections into the future are created. These projections are > > also > > > > just a thought formation. So, there is no past or future in a > > real > > > > sense. But I still have worry and fear in me, but I can see > that > > > > these feelings are perhaps not needed. So I guess they may melt > > > away > > > > leaving the present moment as my foundation. :-) > > > > > > > > People have three " me " : (1) a past me, (2) a present me, and > (3) > > a > > > > future me. But it is only the present me that has any solid > > > existence. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > No Al. That's the problem right there. The me is not solid, it's > > just > > > another thought. And it can't feel fear or anything else. There > is > > > only the sensation of fear... and then a second later a thought > > > evaluating that fear in the context of an illusory me. > > > > > > Pete > > > > Quite right! The only solid thing is awareness itself. " I " forgot > > that. :-) > > > > /AL > > Not even that, Al. There are no permanent states, nothing solid. Flux, > fluidity, gaseous forms expanding, mutating, vanishing and reapering > in emptiness. Nothing to be afraid about, enjoy the show. I think of awareness as something solid, something without size, substance or form, but itself immovable, indestructible. That is what I meant by solid. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 - " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman <Nisargadatta > Monday, May 24, 2004 11:06 PM Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > I can see my entire past as it is; a thought formation in my mind. > This thought-cloud exists in this moment and is thus not a real past. > It is a memory trace existing now. From this thought-cloud > projections into the future are created. These projections are also > just a thought formation. So, there is no past or future in a real > sense. But I still have worry and fear in me, but I can see that > these feelings are perhaps not needed. --------------- The sense of worry, the sense of fearm arises from a sense of a stake. Which is nothing but the sense of the " me " . There is no fear or worry in the " me " . The sense of fear, anxiety, worry, and thus the sense of seeking to alleviate all this, is the very sense of the " me " . > So I guess they may melt away > leaving the present moment as my foundation. :-) > > People have three " me " : (1) a past me, (2) a present me, and (3) a > future me. But it is only the present me that has any solid existence. --------------- No. In the present, there is no " me " . Try finding a " me " . The " me " has an " existence " only in time. Thus the present is, .................the absence of all conceptualizations, even of a " present " . And the absence of even this absence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 - " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman <Nisargadatta > Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:05 AM Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > Nisargadatta , sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > - > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > <Nisargadatta > > > Monday, May 24, 2004 12:06 AM > > Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > > > > > > > Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear has > to > > > do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says that > the > > > Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > Hi AL. > > > > You don't, except as an intellectual premise. > > > > Which might appeal to you or may not. > > > > However, what you can do is to ascertain, whether you(as you have > defined yourself) is the doer of stuff. > > > > Whether that stuff is thinking......... > > > > ..... or........... choosing among multitude of thoughts to arrive > at a " decision " (which is again a thought) ......... > > > > or the external actualization of the " decision " , aka a physical > act, series of such acts constituting behaviour. > > > > Here is an intellectual idea about free will: Not interested. You appeared to have asked a question, " How do I know the Source is the only doer " . A response arrived, inviting you to ascertain, whether you (as you have defined yourself) is the doer of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > <Nisargadatta > > Monday, May 24, 2004 11:06 PM > Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > > > > > I can see my entire past as it is; a thought formation in my mind. > > This thought-cloud exists in this moment and is thus not a real past. > > It is a memory trace existing now. From this thought-cloud > > projections into the future are created. These projections are also > > just a thought formation. So, there is no past or future in a real > > sense. But I still have worry and fear in me, but I can see that > > these feelings are perhaps not needed. > > --------------- > > The sense of worry, the sense of fearm arises from a sense of a stake. > Which is nothing but the sense of the " me " . > There is no fear or worry in the " me " . > The sense of fear, anxiety, worry, and thus the sense of seeking to alleviate all this, is the very sense of the " me " . > > > > > > So I guess they may melt away > > leaving the present moment as my foundation. :-) > > > > People have three " me " : (1) a past me, (2) a present me, and (3) a > > future me. But it is only the present me that has any solid existence. > > --------------- > > No. > > In the present, there is no " me " . > Try finding a " me " . > The " me " has an " existence " only in time. > > Thus the present is, .................the absence of all conceptualizations, even of a " present " . > > And the absence of even this absence. > > Yes, you are right, Even the idea " I am " is a thought/feeling and that which is aware of this " I am " is impersonal awareness. Hmm... What is " me " then? Remove " me " and impersonal awareness will still be there. Remove the impersonal awareness then the " me " will not be there. What I call deep dreamless sleep is not the absence of impersonal awareness. Deep dreamless sleep is only a memory in the present moment. And a memory of absence is not the same as absence itself. Ramesh Basekar describes how the answer comes from the Source: " I don't need any 'me' to do any of My Work. I am and can be the only doer. " Or Vernon Howard: " In order to be eternally saved, you must be willing to be without you. You have no you to *be* saved, you only *think* you do. " /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > <Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:05 AM > Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > > > > Nisargadatta , sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > > > - > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > <Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, May 24, 2004 12:06 AM > > > Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > > > > > > > > > > Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear has > > to > > > > do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says that > > the > > > > Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > Hi AL. > > > > > > You don't, except as an intellectual premise. > > > > > > Which might appeal to you or may not. > > > > > > However, what you can do is to ascertain, whether you(as you have > > defined yourself) is the doer of stuff. > > > > > > Whether that stuff is thinking......... > > > > > > ..... or........... choosing among multitude of thoughts to arrive > > at a " decision " (which is again a thought) ......... > > > > > > or the external actualization of the " decision " , aka a physical > > act, series of such acts constituting behaviour. > > > > > > > Here is an intellectual idea about free will: > > > Not interested. > > You appeared to have asked a question, " How do I know the Source is the only doer " . > > A response arrived, inviting you to ascertain, whether you (as you have defined yourself) is the doer of stuff. > I am probably not the doer, but this must sink in a bit so that I feel if this is so or not. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 - " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman <Nisargadatta > Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:45 PM Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > Nisargadatta , sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > - > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > <Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:05 AM > > Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , sandeep <sandeepc@b...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > - > > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > > <Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, May 24, 2004 12:06 AM > > > > Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear > has > > > to > > > > > do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says > that > > > the > > > > > Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi AL. > > > > > > > > You don't, except as an intellectual premise. > > > > > > > > Which might appeal to you or may not. > > > > > > > > However, what you can do is to ascertain, whether you(as you > have > > > defined yourself) is the doer of stuff. > > > > > > > > Whether that stuff is thinking......... > > > > > > > > ..... or........... choosing among multitude of thoughts to > arrive > > > at a " decision " (which is again a thought) ......... > > > > > > > > or the external actualization of the " decision " , aka a physical > > > act, series of such acts constituting behaviour. > > > > > > > > > > Here is an intellectual idea about free will: > > > > > > Not interested. > > > > You appeared to have asked a question, " How do I know the Source is > the only doer " . > > > > A response arrived, inviting you to ascertain, whether you (as you > have defined yourself) is the doer of stuff. > > > > I am probably not the doer, but this must sink in a bit so that I > feel if this is so or not. > > /AL Hi AL, Invite you to take any past event about which you are totally convinced,........... was a result of your independent volition. Preferably, an event which has had a profound impact in your life, .........may have even turned your life completely. The event could be a thought,...............a selection from among various thoughts to arrive at a " decision " , .........or it could be the external actualization of that decision,..............aka a physical act. Whichever event , about which you feel absolutely convinced was a result of your independent volition. Unravel that event. Which means go back to the previous event which happened (prior to the event being unraveled) and which appears to be the direct causal link to the event being unraveled. And the one previous to that. And so on. As you unravel deeper and deeper, what you will see emerging is a spider's web, with thousands of strands, inter-woven, intertwined, forming a holographic event map. Literally thousands of events , seemingly unrelated to each other, .............and over none of which you had any control whatsoever.... .....each of them had to happen exactly in the manner, fashion, form, as well as in the time in which they all happened, ... .......for the event being unraveled, to have happened, precisely in the manner it did. Digging deeper, you will arrive in each and every case (whether the event you have chosen to unravel, is a profound one or a most mundane one), ................you will arrive at one event, the eye of the spider's web,....... ........which just happened, acausally, non-volitionally(from your point of view), as if from nowhere,......... .........which was as-if the genesis point of the unfolding of the spider's web. (Even this genesis point as a starting point, is in a manner of speaking, for the purpose of this dialogue). After you have seen this for one event, take 5-6 more events and unravel them. And see the case in each and every instance. And thus see the veracity of ,...........pulling a blade of grass and shaking the Universe. See, that for anything to happen, whether it is to scratch your nose, sub on this cyber-based List and post that question, .... .....this responding,......or any of the " profound " events in your life,......... .........for anything to happen in a moment,...............the Universe had to be exactly as it was, in THAT moment, .... .......for that event to occur. There are no " discrete doer " for any doing.(and thus there is no discrete doing either) Even to posit a Source as the primal doer, is in a matter of speaking aimed at negating the sense of personal doership. For the Source of all doing,.................AND...............the doing,.......... are not-Two. Which is what was the prattling through Buddha, pointed There is doing, but no doer thereof; There is suffering, but no sufferer thereof; There is a path, but none to traverse it; There is Nirvan, but none to attain it. So if there is no doer, who is to do even the unraveling?:-) This post is an input arriving, impacting a sentient conditioned manifested organism, labeled " AL " . Depending on the prevailing conditioning in the moment, in the that organism when it is viewing these squiggly signs on a PC screen, ................it may produce as a response in that organism ,....... ..... the " urge " , the thought, the " decision " and it's external actualization, aka the act of unraveling. Or it may not. If it does, or if it does not,................for both the events,...............the Universe has to be exactly as it is, in the moment either of the events takes place. Have fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > <Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:45 PM > Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > > > > Nisargadatta , sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > > > - > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > <Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:05 AM > > > Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , sandeep <sandeepc@b...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > > > <Nisargadatta > > > > > > Monday, May 24, 2004 12:06 AM > > > > > Re: Fwd: Materialism & Idealism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, fear is constantly draining me. I think much of the fear > > has > > > > to > > > > > > do about if I have a free will or not. Ramesh Balsekar says > > that > > > > the > > > > > > Source is the only doer. But how do I know that? > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi AL. > > > > > > > > > > You don't, except as an intellectual premise. > > > > > > > > > > Which might appeal to you or may not. > > > > > > > > > > However, what you can do is to ascertain, whether you(as you > > have > > > > defined yourself) is the doer of stuff. > > > > > > > > > > Whether that stuff is thinking......... > > > > > > > > > > ..... or........... choosing among multitude of thoughts to > > arrive > > > > at a " decision " (which is again a thought) ......... > > > > > > > > > > or the external actualization of the " decision " , aka a physical > > > > act, series of such acts constituting behaviour. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is an intellectual idea about free will: > > > > > > > > > Not interested. > > > > > > You appeared to have asked a question, " How do I know the Source is > > the only doer " . > > > > > > A response arrived, inviting you to ascertain, whether you (as you > > have defined yourself) is the doer of stuff. > > > > > > > I am probably not the doer, but this must sink in a bit so that I > > feel if this is so or not. > > > > /AL > > > Hi AL, > > > Invite you to take any past event about which you are totally convinced,........... was a result of your independent volition. > > Preferably, an event which has had a profound impact in your life, .........may have even turned your life completely. > > The event could be a thought,...............a selection from among various thoughts to arrive at a " decision " , .........or it could be the external actualization of that decision,..............aka a physical act. > > Whichever event , about which you feel absolutely convinced was a result of your independent volition. > > Unravel that event. > > Which means go back to the previous event which happened (prior to the event being unraveled) and which appears to be the direct causal link to the event being unraveled. > > And the one previous to that. > > And so on. > > As you unravel deeper and deeper, what you will see emerging is a spider's web, with thousands of strands, inter-woven, intertwined, forming a holographic event map. > > Literally thousands of events , seemingly unrelated to each other, ............and over none of which you had any control whatsoever.... > > ....each of them had to happen exactly in the manner, fashion, form, as well as in the time in which they all happened, ... > > > ......for the event being unraveled, to have happened, precisely in the manner it did. > > Digging deeper, you will arrive in each and every case (whether the event you have chosen to unravel, is a profound one or a most mundane one), ...............you will arrive at one event, the eye of the spider's web,....... > > .......which just happened, acausally, non-volitionally(from your point of view), as if from nowhere,......... > > ........which was as-if the genesis point of the unfolding of the spider's web. > > (Even this genesis point as a starting point, is in a manner of speaking, for the purpose of this dialogue). > > > After you have seen this for one event, take 5-6 more events and unravel them. > > And see the case in each and every instance. > > And thus see the veracity of ,...........pulling a blade of grass and shaking the Universe. > > See, that for anything to happen, whether it is to scratch your nose, sub on this cyber-based List and post that question, .... > > ....this responding,......or any of the " profound " events in your life,......... > > ........for anything to happen in a moment,...............the Universe had to be exactly as it was, in THAT moment, .... > > ......for that event to occur. > > There are no " discrete doer " for any doing.(and thus there is no discrete doing either) > > Even to posit a Source as the primal doer, is in a matter of speaking aimed at negating the sense of personal doership. > > For the Source of all doing,.................AND...............the doing,.......... are not-Two. > > Which is what was the prattling through Buddha, pointed > > There is doing, but no doer thereof; > There is suffering, but no sufferer thereof; > There is a path, but none to traverse it; > There is Nirvan, but none to attain it. > > > > So if there is no doer, who is to do even the unraveling?:-) > > > This post is an input arriving, impacting a sentient conditioned manifested organism, labeled " AL " . > > Depending on the prevailing conditioning in the moment, in the that organism when it is viewing these squiggly signs on a PC screen, > > ...............it may produce as a response in that organism ,....... > > .... the " urge " , the thought, the " decision " and it's external actualization, aka the act of unraveling. > > Or it may not. > > If it does, or if it does not,................for both the events,...............the Universe has to be exactly as it is, in the moment either of the events takes place. > > > Have fun. > > Nice post! I tried to unravel the act of paying my taxes over the Internet just a minute ago. It was a resistance in me to search for the dirrerent causes and choices that made the event happen. I found a memory of a " me " feeling attached to the doing, but the actual causes that triggered the doing were other events and thoughts which I had no control over. I each moment, as you said, the Universe must be exactly as it is. It *is* at it is. It is also a wholeness. Something truly separate would not be a part of the Universe. Here comes some more intellectual speculation for the interested: Choice is a feeling, the feeling of " I chose this or that " , or " I will choose this or that " . But where does this feeling come from? And is the feeling of choice the same thing as there is a " me " actually making the choice? I can say I know I have made choices, but what is this knowledge other than the memory of the feeling of making choices or the feeling of making a choice now? I cannot say that I create the feeling of making a choice, and without this feeling I would not know I really make any choices. And can the intellect understand this feeling of making a choice? Maybe. But if this feeling of making choices fades away, then there is no way I can say that I make any choice. The dropping of this feeling is what I think happens in what Ramesh Balsekar calls a Sage. /AL 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.