Guest guest Posted May 22, 2004 Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 Two men waiting to board a bus counting their money for the fare. One is enlightened, the other an average passenger? How would the experience be different for the enlightened one ? cheers Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 ONE WHO is enlightened? erici44 <erici44 wrote: Two men waiting to board a bus counting their money for the fare. One is enlightened, the other an average passenger? How would the experience be different for the enlightened one ? cheers Eric ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > Two men waiting to board a bus counting their money for the fare. One > is enlightened, the other an average passenger? > > How would the experience be different for the enlightened one ? > > > cheers > > > Eric In the case of the average passenger, he would think: " I wonder if this is enough money? " The enlightened one would think: " Is this enough money? " :-) /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 , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > > Two men waiting to board a bus counting their money for the fare. > One > > is enlightened, the other an average passenger? > > > > How would the experience be different for the enlightened one ? > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > Eric > > In the case of the average passenger, he would think: " I wonder if > this is enough money? " > > The enlightened one would think: " Is this enough money? " > > :-) > > /AL I buy a monthly pass, and avoid the hassle. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 O.K. I'll make it very simple. What is the difference between a spiritual master doing a simple analytic task and the average person. Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > > > Two men waiting to board a bus counting their money for the fare. > > One > > > is enlightened, the other an average passenger? > > > > > > How would the experience be different for the enlightened one ? > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > In the case of the average passenger, he would think: " I wonder if > > this is enough money? " > > > > The enlightened one would think: " Is this enough money? " > > > > :-) > > > > /AL > > I buy a monthly pass, and avoid the hassle. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > O.K. > > I'll make it very simple. > > What is the difference between a spiritual master doing a simple > analytic task and the average person. The spirital master does the task in the same way, more or less depending on conditioning, genes e t c, as the average person doing the task. But while the average person believs himself or herself doing the task, the spiritual master is free from a " me " doing or not doing something. /AL > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> > wrote: > > > > Two men waiting to board a bus counting their money for the > fare. > > > One > > > > is enlightened, the other an average passenger? > > > > > > > > How would the experience be different for the enlightened one ? > > > > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > In the case of the average passenger, he would think: " I wonder > if > > > this is enough money? " > > > > > > The enlightened one would think: " Is this enough money? " > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > /AL > > > > I buy a monthly pass, and avoid the hassle. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Hello, <<I'll make it very simple. What is the difference between a spiritual master doing a simple analytic task and the average person.>> What is the difference between an enlightened person hitting his finger with a hammer and an unenlightened person doing the same? Nothing, the same applies to the bus pass and the question above, realization happens *through* a reflected HUMAN self. Kind Regards, Scott Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Thanks for your responses. I am fairly new as I'm sure you can tell. Would the realised, detached, observing consciousness stay calm when the hammer hit the thumb ? Would it blame the hammer or the human apparatus :-)) Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hello, > > > <<I'll make it very simple. > > What is the difference between a spiritual master doing a simple > analytic task and the average person.>> > > > > What is the difference between an enlightened person hitting his finger with a hammer and an unenlightened person doing the same? > > Nothing, the same applies to the bus pass and the question above, realization happens *through* a reflected HUMAN self. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott > > > > > > Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > Thanks for your responses. I am fairly new as I'm sure you can tell. > > Would the realised, detached, observing consciousness stay calm when > the hammer hit the thumb ? > > Would it blame the hammer or the human apparatus :-)) > According to Ramesh Balsekar a self realised person knows that he or she is not the doer. Therefore the hammer hitting the thumb is a functioning of Totality and what is happening couldn't be anything else than what is in the moment. The reaction to the pain in the human organism is *also* a functioning of Totality. So what is Is. If the Sage curses the hammer he or she knows that this is *also* a functioning of Totality. As Ramesh says, The One Consciousness called God, Totality or the Source, is the *only* doer. For example, see: http://www.advaita.org/ /AL > > Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > <<I'll make it very simple. > > > > What is the difference between a spiritual master doing a simple > > analytic task and the average person.>> > > > > > > > > What is the difference between an enlightened person hitting his > finger with a hammer and an unenlightened person doing the same? > > > > Nothing, the same applies to the bus pass and the question above, > realization happens *through* a reflected HUMAN self. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Hi Again, <<Thanks for your responses. I am fairly new as I'm sure you can tell. Would the realised, detached, observing consciousness stay calm when the hammer hit the thumb ?>> The realized detached consciousness is not capable of not 'being calm' since it is *only* a witness / subjectivity. The 'thing' that gets annoyed is not 'this consciousness' as witness, but the personality and mind, thoughts which stir the emotions in a reaction to the pain either as an annoyance or a pain response. Whether the person is realized or not would only make a difference if that individual had cultivated his mind enough to not react as much as a normal person did, yet the normal person is just as capable of not reacting as the 'enlightened person', it makes not the slightest difference for the purposes of discussing the reaction. <Would it blame the hammer or the human apparatus :-))> They might think, 'It is just a happening!' or 'How silly of me' Kind Regards, Scott. Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hello, > > > <<I'll make it very simple. > > What is the difference between a spiritual master doing a simple > analytic task and the average person.>> > > > > What is the difference between an enlightened person hitting his finger with a hammer and an unenlightened person doing the same? > > Nothing, the same applies to the bus pass and the question above, realization happens *through* a reflected HUMAN self. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott > > > > > > Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 " Whether the person is realized or not would only make a difference if that individual had cultivated his mind enough to not react as much as a normal person did, yet the normal person is just as capable of not reacting as the 'enlightened person', it makes not the slightest difference for the purposes of discussing the reaction. " Thank you, that's exactly what was in my mind. I would have assumed that to be realised, even for a short period would require a high level of mental stability and focus. I understand (I think) that realisation is ultimately understanding, seeing into the true nature of things, but to go beyond the natural mind's habit of attachment surely requires a high level of concentration ? cheers Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 Hi Eric, " Whether the person is realized or not would only make a difference if that individual had cultivated his mind enough to not react as much as a normal person did, yet the normal person is just as capable of not reacting as the 'enlightened person', it makes not the slightest difference for the purposes of discussing the reaction. " <Thank you, that's exactly what was in my mind. I would have assumed that to be realised, even for a short period would require a high level of mental stability and focus. >> It might help in the beginning to have this stability to 'realize'. But there is understanding or there isn't, it doesn't make any difference what the mind is doing anymore than it makes a difference what the birds or clouds are doing. <<I understand (I think) that realisation is ultimately understanding, seeing into the true nature of things, >> Not things. 'Mind' and what 'you' are. <<but to go beyond the natural mind's habit of attachment surely requires a high level of concentration ?>> It is enough to simply understand ones mind by observing it and knowing how it works. Then everything is plain to see, you don't have to wrestle with it. Kind Regards, Scott. Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Thank you once again Scott. I hope I'm not pushing my luck, but these are genuine questions from someone who wishes to understand. For me, consciousness and awareness frequently change levels, therefore spiritual insight is a temporary experience. Hitting my thumb with a hammer would make it disappear instantly because the attention would jump to the physical level. How am I different from a realised master ? Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > > " Whether the person is realized or not would only make a difference > if that individual had cultivated his mind enough to not react as > much as a normal person did, yet the normal person is just as capable > of not reacting as the 'enlightened person', it makes not the > slightest difference for the purposes of discussing the reaction. " > > <Thank you, that's exactly what was in my mind. I would have assumed > that to be realised, even for a short period would require a high > level of mental stability and focus. >> > > > > It might help in the beginning to have this stability to 'realize'. > > But there is understanding or there isn't, it doesn't make any difference what the mind is doing anymore than it makes a difference what the birds or clouds are doing. > > > <<I understand (I think) that realisation is ultimately understanding, > seeing into the true nature of things, >> > > Not things. > > 'Mind' and what 'you' are. > > > > <<but to go beyond the natural > mind's habit of attachment surely requires a high level of > concentration ?>> > > It is enough to simply understand ones mind by observing it and knowing how it works. Then everything is plain to see, you don't have to wrestle with it. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Hi again, <<Thank you once again Scott. I hope I'm not pushing my luck, but these are genuine questions from someone who wishes to understand.>> Sure, no worries. <<For me, consciousness and awareness frequently change levels, therefore spiritual insight is a temporary experience. >> Awareness never changes, 'your' mind and thoughts do. 'Your' mind and thoughts also change the conception of what awareness and consciousness actually are *to you*. And all these concepts are trying to point to 'something' which cannot be known through mentation. They also build up an incorrect impression of what 'you' *are*. <Hitting my thumb with a hammer would make it disappear instantly because the attention would jump to the physical level. >> Attention is where the mind is pointed; Where you are directing it, but awareness is not and cannot be directed anywhere. It is 'above' mentation and mind and 'sees' *all this*. You cannot think about awareness anymore than you can chew your own teeth. <<How am I different from a realised master ?>> No person is ever realized; strictly speaking realization happens 'through' an individual reflection who if realized does not reflect but shines. But there is no *who* which can ever *know* because what makes us us, what makes 'you' and 'me' what we 'are' is the by-default limitation of mind, thought and intellect which is *itself being known* but which ITSELF can never be a *KNOWER*. Your thoughts, body and question above are objects which are *being known* to the unknowable knower, known only to itSELF. The *who* ( or me ) which can never itself know *assumes* that the mind body structure is the *originator of subjectivity* and that this mind of 'mine' is something 'I' possess. The difference between 'you' and a realized person is nothing except a mind / body believing itself to be the originator or being responsible for subjective awareness. A mind / body claims pure subjective awareness as it's own, when in fact it is an object being known. Kind Regards, Scott Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > > " Whether the person is realized or not would only make a difference > if that individual had cultivated his mind enough to not react as > much as a normal person did, yet the normal person is just as capable > of not reacting as the 'enlightened person', it makes not the > slightest difference for the purposes of discussing the reaction. " > > <Thank you, that's exactly what was in my mind. I would have assumed > that to be realised, even for a short period would require a high > level of mental stability and focus. >> > > > > It might help in the beginning to have this stability to 'realize'. > > But there is understanding or there isn't, it doesn't make any difference what the mind is doing anymore than it makes a difference what the birds or clouds are doing. > > > <<I understand (I think) that realisation is ultimately understanding, > seeing into the true nature of things, >> > > Not things. > > 'Mind' and what 'you' are. > > > > <<but to go beyond the natural > mind's habit of attachment surely requires a high level of > concentration ?>> > > It is enough to simply understand ones mind by observing it and knowing how it works. Then everything is plain to see, you don't have to wrestle with it. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > Thank you once again Scott. I hope I'm not pushing my luck, but these > are genuine questions from someone who wishes to understand. > > > For me, consciousness and awareness frequently change levels, > therefore spiritual insight is a temporary experience. Hitting my > thumb with a hammer would make it disappear instantly because the > attention would jump to the physical level. > > How am I different from a realised master ? > You have questions. A master have seen through the mirage of intellectual understanding. He/she lives instictively without need for explantions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Thanks Scott I think I'm more or less there. You really saw where I was stuck. I was giving primacy to the attention as being the same as or at least an aspect of awareness. It hadn't occurred to me that attention was of the conditioned mind. I'm glad I asked now because I don't think I would ever have got there by myself. " No person is ever realized; strictly speaking realization happens 'through' an individual reflection who if realized does not reflect but shines. " That's fantastic, I was looking for a visual metaphor. Would you say that awareness is the purpose of earthly existence ? Slightly at a tangent here, but the description of the mind below sounds so much like the Gnostic demiurge. " The *who* ( or me ) which can never itself know *assumes* that the mind body structure is the *originator of subjectivity* and that this mind of 'mine' is something 'I' possess. very grateful for your help Eric Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > <<Thank you once again Scott. I hope I'm not pushing my luck, but these > are genuine questions from someone who wishes to understand.>> > > Sure, no worries. > > > > <<For me, consciousness and awareness frequently change levels, therefore spiritual insight is a temporary experience. >> > > Awareness never changes, 'your' mind and thoughts do. > > 'Your' mind and thoughts also change the conception of what awareness and consciousness actually are *to you*. > > And all these concepts are trying to point to 'something' which cannot be known through mentation. > > They also build up an incorrect impression of what 'you' *are*. > > > > <Hitting my > thumb with a hammer would make it disappear instantly because the attention would jump to the physical level. >> > > Attention is where the mind is pointed; Where you are directing it, but awareness is not and cannot be directed anywhere. It is 'above' mentation and mind and 'sees' *all this*. You cannot think about awareness anymore than you can chew your own teeth. > > > > <<How am I different from a realised master ?>> > > No person is ever realized; strictly speaking realization happens 'through' an individual reflection who if realized does not reflect but shines. > > But there is no *who* which can ever *know* because what makes us us, what makes 'you' and 'me' what we 'are' is the by-default limitation of mind, thought and intellect which is *itself being known* but which ITSELF can never be a *KNOWER*. > > Your thoughts, body and question above are objects which are *being known* to the unknowable knower, known only to itSELF. > > The *who* ( or me ) which can never itself know *assumes* that the mind body structure is the *originator of subjectivity* and that this mind of 'mine' is something 'I' possess. > > The difference between 'you' and a realized person is nothing except a mind / body believing itself to be the originator or being responsible for subjective awareness. A mind / body claims pure subjective awareness as it's own, when in fact it is an object being known. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott > > > > ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Hi again Eric, <I think I'm more or less there.> No. Stop thinking about an *I'm* or a *me* doing or being or achieving or realizing a some*thing*. 'You' can never know. A *me* will never realize *I* even until the end of time. Thinking pushes away 'your own nature' impossibly far. Stop thinking *at all* about anything and find out '''''''''''who'''''''''''' the world and 'your' thoughts arise to? Who do 'you' arise to? Are 'you' other than your thoughts? Is there a 'you'? Don't point to yourself with your finger and say *I*. Rest and find out what or who the world arises to. Your thinking above that 'I have it' is still viewed even as the trees are viewed. <You really saw where I was stuck.>> 'You' are not stuck. Find out who thinks they are stuck. <<I was giving primacy to the attention as being the same as or at least an aspect of awareness. It hadn't occurred to me that attention was of the conditioned mind. I'm glad I asked now because I don't think I would ever have got there by myself.>> Drop the mind, thinking, concepts and everything else. If you want to know who you are ask and see to whom the question arises. <<Would you say that awareness is the purpose of earthly existence ?>> Purpose is something that is *given* to what is by a thinking me, in order for there to be an I as me and a world as that there must be a subjective thinking ME. Any thought of purpose is the subjectification of the whole self by self in and by a subjectifying reflected self which divides the world into 'I' and 'that' and then seeks to define a purpose or truth about 'that'. To answer your question in the only real way it can be answered is to say that it truly is not a question that *NEED be answered*. <<Slightly at a tangent here, but the description of the mind below sounds so much like the Gnostic demiurge.>> Have not investigated that enough to comment, but all these things are labels only and do not matter in the slightest. " The *who* ( or me ) which can never itself know *assumes* that the mind body structure is the *originator of subjectivity* and that this mind of 'mine' is something 'I' possess. Bye for now, Scott. Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > <<Thank you once again Scott. I hope I'm not pushing my luck, but these > are genuine questions from someone who wishes to understand.>> > > Sure, no worries. > > > > <<For me, consciousness and awareness frequently change levels, therefore spiritual insight is a temporary experience. >> > > Awareness never changes, 'your' mind and thoughts do. > > 'Your' mind and thoughts also change the conception of what awareness and consciousness actually are *to you*. > > And all these concepts are trying to point to 'something' which cannot be known through mentation. > > They also build up an incorrect impression of what 'you' *are*. > > > > <Hitting my > thumb with a hammer would make it disappear instantly because the attention would jump to the physical level. >> > > Attention is where the mind is pointed; Where you are directing it, but awareness is not and cannot be directed anywhere. It is 'above' mentation and mind and 'sees' *all this*. You cannot think about awareness anymore than you can chew your own teeth. > > > > <<How am I different from a realised master ?>> > > No person is ever realized; strictly speaking realization happens 'through' an individual reflection who if realized does not reflect but shines. > > But there is no *who* which can ever *know* because what makes us us, what makes 'you' and 'me' what we 'are' is the by-default limitation of mind, thought and intellect which is *itself being known* but which ITSELF can never be a *KNOWER*. > > Your thoughts, body and question above are objects which are *being known* to the unknowable knower, known only to itSELF. > > The *who* ( or me ) which can never itself know *assumes* that the mind body structure is the *originator of subjectivity* and that this mind of 'mine' is something 'I' possess. > > The difference between 'you' and a realized person is nothing except a mind / body believing itself to be the originator or being responsible for subjective awareness. A mind / body claims pure subjective awareness as it's own, when in fact it is an object being known. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott > > > > ] ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > <<Thank you once again Scott. I hope I'm not pushing my luck, but these > are genuine questions from someone who wishes to understand.>> > > Sure, no worries. > > > > <<For me, consciousness and awareness frequently change levels, therefore spiritual insight is a temporary experience. >> > > Awareness never changes, 'your' mind and thoughts do. > > 'Your' mind and thoughts also change the conception of what awareness and consciousness actually are *to you*. > > And all these concepts are trying to point to 'something' which cannot be known through mentation. > > They also build up an incorrect impression of what 'you' *are*. > > > > <Hitting my > thumb with a hammer would make it disappear instantly because the attention would jump to the physical level. >> > > Attention is where the mind is pointed; Where you are directing it, but awareness is not and cannot be directed anywhere. It is 'above' mentation and mind and 'sees' *all this*. You cannot think about awareness anymore than you can chew your own teeth. > > > > <<How am I different from a realised master ?>> > > No person is ever realized; strictly speaking realization happens 'through' an individual reflection who if realized does not reflect but shines. > > But there is no *who* which can ever *know* because what makes us us, what makes 'you' and 'me' what we 'are' is the by-default limitation of mind, thought and intellect which is *itself being known* but which ITSELF can never be a *KNOWER*. > > Your thoughts, body and question above are objects which are *being known* to the unknowable knower, known only to itSELF. > > The *who* ( or me ) which can never itself know *assumes* that the mind body structure is the *originator of subjectivity* and that this mind of 'mine' is something 'I' possess. > > The difference between 'you' and a realized person is nothing except a mind / body believing itself to be the originator or being responsible for subjective awareness. A mind / body claims pure subjective awareness as it's own, when in fact it is an object being known. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott Nice. When I think about it I really do claim awareness as me, but this me is indeed not the subject awareness itself, but an observed object. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> > wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > > > " Whether the person is realized or not would only make a difference > > if that individual had cultivated his mind enough to not react as > > much as a normal person did, yet the normal person is just as > capable > > of not reacting as the 'enlightened person', it makes not the > > slightest difference for the purposes of discussing the reaction. " > > > > <Thank you, that's exactly what was in my mind. I would have > assumed > > that to be realised, even for a short period would require a high > > level of mental stability and focus. >> > > > > > > > > It might help in the beginning to have this stability to 'realize'. > > > > But there is understanding or there isn't, it doesn't make any > difference what the mind is doing anymore than it makes a difference > what the birds or clouds are doing. > > > > > > <<I understand (I think) that realisation is ultimately > understanding, > > seeing into the true nature of things, >> > > > > Not things. > > > > 'Mind' and what 'you' are. > > > > > > > > <<but to go beyond the natural > > mind's habit of attachment surely requires a high level of > > concentration ?>> > > > > It is enough to simply understand ones mind by observing it and > knowing how it works. Then everything is plain to see, you don't have > to wrestle with it. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Hi Anders, <<Nice. When I think about it I really do claim awareness as me, but this me is indeed not the subject awareness itself, but an observed object.>> Don't think, at all, about any of this. Understand how the mind reacts to events and things and the way mind works, watch the mind like a keen eagle all the time, then give it up as being what *you are* completely, or accept it completely as being what you are not. Kind Regards, Scott. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> > wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > > > " Whether the person is realized or not would only make a difference > > if that individual had cultivated his mind enough to not react as > > much as a normal person did, yet the normal person is just as > capable > > of not reacting as the 'enlightened person', it makes not the > > slightest difference for the purposes of discussing the reaction. " > > > > <Thank you, that's exactly what was in my mind. I would have > assumed > > that to be realised, even for a short period would require a high > > level of mental stability and focus. >> > > > > > > > > It might help in the beginning to have this stability to 'realize'. > > > > But there is understanding or there isn't, it doesn't make any > difference what the mind is doing anymore than it makes a difference > what the birds or clouds are doing. > > > > > > <<I understand (I think) that realisation is ultimately > understanding, > > seeing into the true nature of things, >> > > > > Not things. > > > > 'Mind' and what 'you' are. > > > > > > > > <<but to go beyond the natural > > mind's habit of attachment surely requires a high level of > > concentration ?>> > > > > It is enough to simply understand ones mind by observing it and > knowing how it works. Then everything is plain to see, you don't have > to wrestle with it. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Light (Awareness) actually doesn't care about colour (consciousness) and, even about the Gestalt (nociceptive-apparatus) through which, the a cognition of phenomena can take place. Light doesn't care about absorption or reflection. Neither form nor the quality of an object, is a part of the light, in which an object can be seen. Something manifests itself as cognizable, through an apparatus able to abstract phenomena from pure nociceptive experiences. This enables a world of cause and effect, the apprehension of a self, where light can be described as electromagnetic waves and phenomena as an interplay between absorption and reflection. There are, in my opinion, no sharp borders between Awareness, consciousness and a primary just nociceptive apparatus. All is in fluctuation. From the portuguese man of war to the most sophisticated intellect. Fools or sages...are just colours. The singularity of the witness makes it possible, to apprehend the message written between these lines. With other words, by and through the witness, a defection from all the manifested is facilitated, even from a self. En'lightened' means to shine. Conceived as representation, perceived as manifestation of the Awareness, the light, in which everything is imbedded and maybe made up of. The dream-like consistency of phenomena, the holographic character of phenomenalty can be apprehended by consciousness, as a product, a projection based on a singularity that happened to a nociceptive apparatus. But even here we can't speak, about absolute borders between non-nociceptive (vegetal) life or, even the inorganic expressions of the hologram, in form of stones or other minerals or what ever. The fluctuation follows a gaussian distribution, between two, as antagonistic perceived phenomena. Predominant in phenomenalty are the tones in grey. Colours, distinctions, discriminations are projections. An as circumscript experienced object-subject-constellation, a self, taking a promenade, independently of its level of consciousness, could as well be the projection generated by the stone he sees on the wayside, in an interplay of projection and a countercurrent projection of light. A sage, so to say, shines with everything. An enlightened being is one with all, at the bus-stop, at the laundromat or washing the dishes. Absolutely no difference can be seen or perceived compared to a " non-enlightened " being and even compared to the stone at the wayside or the gravel crunching under my shoes during a promenade. A enlightened being has the complete controll over phenomenalty and no interest in it anymore. sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > > <<Nice. When I think about it I really do claim awareness as me, but > this me is indeed not the subject awareness itself, but an observed > object.>> > > > > Don't think, at all, about any of this. > > Understand how the mind reacts to events and things and the way mind works, watch the mind like a keen eagle all the time, then give it up as being what *you are* completely, or accept it completely as being what you are not. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > Better yet; observe yourself as an unmoving video camera observing a dead past. Observe that other people are having the same camera. Now, what can that which don't move do about a past it sees? The camera sees only the past, and the past cannot be changed. The accepting and non-accepting has already happened and is not any of your or mine doing of anything. How can an unmoving video camera do anything? How can your present awareness do anything? Your feelings and thoughts about doing things HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, and there is no " you " that can do anything about it. You can only observe WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. Understand? There is nothing to fear, except the fear that has already happened. Since everything has already happened, there is nothing to be afraid of, so fear is the grand cosmic illusion based on the idea of an individual doer. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 >You can only observe WHAT HAS ALREADY >HAPPENED. Understand? There is nothing to fear, except the fear that >has already happened. Since everything has already happened, there is >nothing to be afraid of, so fear is the grand cosmic illusion based >on the idea of an individual doer. > >/AL YUMMMM!!!!! very very helpful!!!!! Was just yakking to someone about anger...which seems to be fear based.....fear that this " I " might suffer some injury or that 'I' might actually have some control over what happens. Fear is pointless, anger then is pointless, just the " i " playing out the drama (gee.....could use a new role or a new director maybe :-) TITP thanks in the past :-) RL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Hi Anders, 1. Don't think, don't think about thinking, don't think about the thinker and what it is doing. 2. Just look, find out what looks. 3. Be that looking. Kind Regards, Scott. Better yet; observe yourself as an unmoving video camera observing a dead past. Observe that other people are having the same camera. Now, what can that which don't move do about a past it sees? The camera sees only the past, and the past cannot be changed. The accepting and non-accepting has already happened and is not any of your or mine doing of anything. How can an unmoving video camera do anything? How can your present awareness do anything? Your feelings and thoughts about doing things HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, and there is no " you " that can do anything about it. You can only observe WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. Understand? There is nothing to fear, except the fear that has already happened. Since everything has already happened, there is nothing to be afraid of, so fear is the grand cosmic illusion based on the idea of an individual doer. /AL ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > 1. Don't think, don't think about thinking, don't think about the thinker and what it is doing. > > 2. Just look, find out what looks. > > 3. Be that looking. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Thanks Scott. I will try this. :-) /AL > > > > > Better yet; observe yourself as an unmoving video camera observing a > dead past. Observe that other people are having the same camera. Now, > what can that which don't move do about a past it sees? The camera > sees only the past, and the past cannot be changed. The accepting and > non-accepting has already happened and is not any of your or mine > doing of anything. How can an unmoving video camera do anything? How > can your present awareness do anything? Your feelings and thoughts > about doing things HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, and there is no " you " that > can do anything about it. You can only observe WHAT HAS ALREADY > HAPPENED. Understand? There is nothing to fear, except the fear that > has already happened. Since everything has already happened, there is > nothing to be afraid of, so fear is the grand cosmic illusion based > on the idea of an individual doer. > > /AL > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Hi Just joined the group, groping, trying to send a message, in a few days maybe ok. Isnt it better to observe than to preconcieve? Isnt it better to accept than interfere? Isnt it better to be present than to enquire? enlighten me please --- Scott Andersen <sga_email wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > 1. Don't think, don't think about thinking, don't > think about the thinker and what it is doing. > > 2. Just look, find out what looks. > > 3. Be that looking. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > Better yet; observe yourself as an unmoving video > camera observing a > dead past. Observe that other people are having the > same camera. Now, > what can that which don't move do about a past it > sees? The camera > sees only the past, and the past cannot be changed. > The accepting and > non-accepting has already happened and is not any of > your or mine > doing of anything. How can an unmoving video camera > do anything? How > can your present awareness do anything? Your > feelings and thoughts > about doing things HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, and there > is no " you " that > can do anything about it. You can only observe WHAT > HAS ALREADY > HAPPENED. Understand? There is nothing to fear, > except the fear that > has already happened. Since everything has already > happened, there is > nothing to be afraid of, so fear is the grand cosmic > illusion based > on the idea of an individual doer. > > /AL > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to > change your subscription, sign in with your ID > and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " > for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save > Changes. > > > > > 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.