Guest guest Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 The major change in this world is caused by time. Then, there is another thing that can change this world, and that is free will; if there is such thing. It is quite obvious that we cannot by using our free will change time, i.e. we cannot make time go faster or slower by using free will. But for free will to really be able to make any change in this world, such as making a real choice, then free will must be able to change reality in another dimension than time. If free will has anything to do with the dimension of time, then free will would be able to affect time, something which is quite obviously not happening. Now, when using your " free will " , do you depend in any way on past experiences? Yes or no? Do you use past experiences when making a choice? Yes or no? If you do, then your free will is not operating in a dimension orthogonal to time (independent of time). Without time, what is your free will then? ;-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Hi, <he major change in this world is caused by time. Then, there is > The major change in the world ( the change of movement in space ) IS time it is not caused by it. <other thing that can change this world, and that is free will; if there is such thing.> There both is and isn't free will. Same as there both is and isn't up and down. Kind Regards, Scott. Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi, > > <he major change in this world is caused by time. Then, there is > > > The major change in the world ( the change of movement in space ) IS time it is not caused by it. Yes, we could say that. > > <other thing that can change this world, and that is free will; if > there is such thing.> > > There both is and isn't free will. Same as there both is and isn't up and down. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > The intellect wants to know facts. But as I see it, the only fact is " I am " , or, rather just " am " . /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Hi again Anders, > The intellect wants to know facts. But as I see it, the only fact > is " I am " , or, rather just " am " . > Yes, the intellect of 'me' wants to know ( facts, data, knowledge ). ''*I am*'' is not a fact. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > > The intellect wants to know facts. But as I see it, the only fact > > is " I am " , or, rather just " am " . > > > > > Yes, the intellect of 'me' wants to know ( facts, data, knowledge ). > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Ramesh Balsekar use to say: " Who wants to know, my friend. Who wants to know? " A created object wants to know the basis for how the creator subject works. That is not possible unless the creator subject makes this understanding come to the created object. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > Hi again Anders, > > > > > > > The intellect wants to know facts. But as I see it, the only fact > > > is " I am " , or, rather just " am " . > > > > > > > > > Yes, the intellect of 'me' wants to know ( facts, data, knowledge ). > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > Ramesh Balsekar use to say: " Who wants to know, my friend. Who wants > to know? " > > A created object wants to know the basis for how the creator subject works Yes. > That is not possible unless the creator subject makes this > understanding come to the created object. > > /AL When the illusion of any separable consciousness " in " the object dissolves, there is no one to ask the question. No answer is needed. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > Nisargadatta , > " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Scott > Andersen " > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > Hi again Anders, > > > > > > > > > > The intellect wants to know facts. But as I > see it, the only > fact > > > > is " I am " , or, rather just " am " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the intellect of 'me' wants to know ( > facts, data, > knowledge ). > > > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact. > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. > > > > Ramesh Balsekar use to say: " Who wants to know, my > friend. Who > wants > > to know? " > > > > A created object wants to know the basis for how > the creator > subject works > > Yes. > > > That is not possible unless the creator subject > makes this > > understanding come to the created object. > > > > /AL > > > When the illusion of any separable > consciousness " in " the object dissolves, > there is no one to ask the question. > > No answer is needed. > > -- Dan > hahahahahahahahaha > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger. http://messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , jacob mathan <jacmattvm> wrote: > > --- dan330033 <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , > > " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott > > Andersen " > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi again Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > > The intellect wants to know facts. But as I > > see it, the only > > fact > > > > > is " I am " , or, rather just " am " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the intellect of 'me' wants to know ( > > facts, data, > > knowledge ). > > > > > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar use to say: " Who wants to know, my > > friend. Who > > wants > > > to know? " > > > > > > A created object wants to know the basis for how > > the creator > > subject works > > > > Yes. > > > > > That is not possible unless the creator subject > > makes this > > > understanding come to the created object. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > When the illusion of any separable > > consciousness " in " the object dissolves, > > there is no one to ask the question. > > > > No answer is needed. > > > > -- Dan > > hahahahahahahahaha Yes! No answers about " who am I? " will be needed. Yet all kinds of other answers and questions will still be there as a play in the Kosmic drama. Unless one dissolves into nothing, of course. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Hi again, > > The intellect wants to know facts. But as I see it, the only fact > > is " I am " , or, rather just " am " . > Yes, the intellect of 'me' wants to know ( facts, data, knowledge ). > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact. <<Ramesh Balsekar use to say: " Who wants to know, my friend. Who wants to know? " >> Yes, who does. There is no *who* that *can* know. Scott. Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > The intellect wants to know facts. But as I see it, the only fact > > > is " I am " , or, rather just " am " . > > > > Yes, the intellect of 'me' wants to know ( facts, data, knowledge ). > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact. > > > <<Ramesh Balsekar use to say: " Who wants to know, my friend. Who wants > to know? " >> > > Yes, who does. > > There is no *who* that *can* know. > > Scott. > But *I* know that 2 + 2 = 4, and not 2 + 2 = 5! But I also know that " 2 " is not to be found anywhere as something existing in itself. In the old days, when people were smarter than today, an old lady proclaimed: " Behold everyone, I have found the number 2! " Many people gathered around this old lady having this unusual knowledge. They didn't believe she really could have found the number 2, but curiosity prevailed, so they were drawn to this lady. Has she really found the number 2? One gentleman in the croud asked the lady: " Well, then, would you perhaps be so kind as to show us the number 2? " The lady looked at the man with tremendous pity as if he didn't know anything about the obvious truth that the number 2 was real right in this very moment. " Look here " , she said. And then she held up one of her arms: " One " , she said. Then she raised her other arm: " Two! " , she exclaimed. Then people looked in amazement at the old lady. There it was, they could really see it, the lady really had two arms, the number 2 had been found. " Halleluiah! " , the croud shouted, and a proud professor stepped out of the croud congratulating the old lady for this victorious discovery. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Hi again, > <<Ramesh Balsekar use to say: " Who wants to know, my friend. Who wants > to know? " >> > > Yes, who does. > > There is no *who* that *can* know. > > Scott. <But *I* know that 2 + 2 = 4, and not 2 + 2 = 5!> Who is this I that *you* are referring or pointing to? It is like when someone points to themselves with a finger and says 'I am John' or 'I am hungry'. This thing that you refer to as a knower of these facts, or the thing that references a persons own name to themselves or a condition such as cold or hunger etc, is that referrer what they are? Scott. Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > <<Ramesh Balsekar use to say: " Who wants to know, my friend. Who > wants > > to know? " >> > > > > Yes, who does. > > > > There is no *who* that *can* know. > > > > Scott. > > > <But *I* know that 2 + 2 = 4, and not 2 + 2 = 5!> > > Who is this I that *you* are referring or pointing to? > > It is like when someone points to themselves with a finger and says 'I am John' or 'I am hungry'. > > This thing that you refer to as a knower of these facts, or the thing that references a persons own name to themselves or a condition such as cold or hunger etc, is that referrer what they are? > > Scott. When I see a cloud in the sky think: " I see that cloud " . When I feel something in my body, I think: " I feel my body " . When I observe my thoughts, I think: " I observe my thoughts " . When I observe myself thinking about my thoughts, I think: " I observe myself thinking " . There is no end to this infinite regress of thinking about thinking. We only need to see that the cloud in the sky, the body _and_ the thoughts observed are _not_ me. They are appearances in me. The cloud appear in my mind. The thoughts appear in my mind. I myself remain pure awareness. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Hi again, <We only need to see that the cloud in the sky, the body _and_ the thoughts observed are _not_ me. They are appearances in me.> There is no *me*, and it is only a me that says 'they are appearances in me' <The cloud appear in my mind. The thoughts appear in my mind.> Whose mind? <I myself remain pure awareness. :-)> Who claims this on whose behalf? Scott. Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > <We only need to see that the cloud in the sky, the body _and_ the > thoughts observed are _not_ me. They are appearances in me.> > > There is no *me*, and it is only a me that says 'they are appearances in me' > > <The cloud > appear in my mind. The thoughts appear in my mind.> > > Whose mind? > > <I myself remain > pure awareness. :-)> > > Who claims this on whose behalf? > > Scott. > I do. I am a solidified memory track of being a separate doer. This rigid structure of knowledge is the ego. This structure knows that it has to do things by itself. Ridiculous, yet that is the truth. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Hi again, <I do. I am a solidified memory track of being a separate doer.> This is a *me* talking and a *me* isn't real. Can you say what you are? <This rigid structure of knowledge is the ego. This structure knows that it has to do things by itself. Ridiculous, yet that is the truth. :-)> It is 'okay' to talk about me and what I do in my work etc what hobbies I like etc, it does no good or to no benefit to try and separate the ego as a separate *it* thing because it is the *me* / ego that is itself doing the separating! 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 June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi again, > > <I do. I am a solidified memory track of being a separate doer.> > > This is a *me* talking and a *me* isn't real. > > Can you say what you are? Yes, that would be something that cannot change. That which changes is not something I am. Only the impersonal awareness of being is unchanging so this means that what I am is impersonal awareness. > > <This > rigid structure of knowledge is the ego. This structure knows that it > has to do things by itself. Ridiculous, yet that is the truth. :-)> > > It is 'okay' to talk about me and what I do in my work etc what hobbies I like etc, it does no good or to no benefit to try and separate the ego as a separate *it* thing because it is the *me* / ego that is itself doing the separating! > > Scott It is Time that do this separation. Time is probably the only change there is. There is the path, but no one who walks it. It is Time as an automatic process making things happen. Action happens, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof. Time is the only change. Everything just happens. /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 June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Hi again, > This is a *me* talking and a *me* isn't real. > > Can you say what you are? <Yes, that would be something that cannot change. That which changes is not something I am. Only the impersonal awareness of being is unchanging so this means that what I am is impersonal awareness.> Impersonal yes. > It is 'okay' to talk about me and what I do in my work etc what hobbies I like etc, it does no good or to no benefit to try and separate the ego as a separate *it* thing because it is the *me* / ego that is itself doing the separating!> <It is Time that do this separation. Time is probably the only change there is.> Time itself *is* the change of movement in space. <There is the path, but no one who walks it.> Paths are tracks in the sands of self that lead self back to itself. The path that gets defended as the means for realization and the one who defends it is not the one that can bring it to fruition or realize it's fulfilment. The path that gets defended and glorified subjectively is itself an obstacle to the path. <It is Time as an automatic process making things happen.> Time *does not* make things happen, it *is* the happening of things in comparison to movement in space. <Action happens, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof.> There both *is and isn't* and then no-one to say so either. <Time is the only change.> Change is time, not the other way around. <Everything just happens.> It is all a matter of *perspective* Scott. Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > This is a *me* talking and a *me* isn't real. > > > > Can you say what you are? > > <Yes, that would be something that cannot change. That which changes > is not something I am. Only the impersonal awareness of being is > unchanging so this means that what I am is impersonal awareness.> > > > Impersonal yes. > > > > It is 'okay' to talk about me and what I do in my work etc what > hobbies I like etc, it does no good or to no benefit to try and > separate the ego as a separate *it* thing because it is the *me* / > ego that is itself doing the separating!> > > > <It is Time that do this separation. Time is probably the only change > there is.> > > Time itself *is* the change of movement in space. Yes, there is only Now. At least I haven't seen anything other than this Now. > > > > <There is the path, but no one who walks it.> > > Paths are tracks in the sands of self that lead self back to itself. > > The path that gets defended as the means for realization and the one who defends it is not the one that can bring it to fruition or realize it's fulfilment. The path that gets defended and glorified subjectively is itself an obstacle to the path. > > <It is Time as > an automatic process making things happen.> > > Time *does not* make things happen, it *is* the happening of things in comparison to movement in space. Time is the process itself, yes. If it is automatic or not I don't know, but at least a very big " part " of this process seems automatic. > > <Action happens, deeds are > done, but there is no individual doer thereof.> > > There both *is and isn't* and then no-one to say so either. We can see that time as being change in the moment is the major doer. If there are also individual doers able to act and cause change by themselves I don't know, but it seems to me that no individual person can change the Universe by himself or herself. It seems to me that real choice can only exist if the person making the choice actually alter the course of the Universe by using personal volition. " Everything begins with choice. " -- Morpheus in Matrix Reloaded " No. Wrong. Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without. " -- The Merovingian in the same movie :-) > > <Time is the only > change.> > > Change is time, not the other way around. Change and time are different names of the same aspect. But time as seen as a separate " thing " or force making other things happen is clearly dubious. " I don't have enough time " , we often say. But we could also say that there is always enough time. :-) > > <Everything just happens.> > > It is all a matter of *perspective* > > Scott. I have the perspective that I am the doer. But I would like to have the perspective Ramesh Balsekar talks about. It seems to me that my personal " free will " is the most tiny and frustrating thing there is. I look at the world how it just happens. I look in wonder at the magic that holds every particle in the Universe connected in such intricate patters as to create cars and human beings. I know that it is not human beings who are responsible for holding every particle together in such correct synch. I know that I don't create my own body, or my mind, or my awareness, or my thoughts, or my feelings, and _yet_ it feels like I am the one making choices and that I am compelled to make these choices. /AL > > > > > > > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 The ego does have a temporary seperate quantum existence. That existence has a meaning for the spark of divinity (I am) that 'you' ultimately are. It is its path to self knowledge and liberation from form. The individuality of the ego is part of a more or less infinite diversity that characterises the finite quantum physical world. In my view, the fact that it is so diverse and we assume created by a great Intelligence means that the seperate parts are fundamentally important in the scheme of things (totality) even beyond space and time where they exist. Eric Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi again, > > <I do. I am a solidified memory track of being a separate doer.> > > This is a *me* talking and a *me* isn't real. > > Can you say what you are? > > <This > rigid structure of knowledge is the ego. This structure knows that it > has to do things by itself. Ridiculous, yet that is the truth. :-)> > > It is 'okay' to talk about me and what I do in my work etc what hobbies I like etc, it does no good or to no benefit to try and separate the ego as a separate *it* thing because it is the *me* / ego that is itself doing the separating! > > 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 June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Hi, <The ego does have a temporary seperate quantum existence. That existence has a meaning for the spark of divinity (I am) that 'you' ultimately are. It is its path to self knowledge and liberation from form.> You have put this down wonderfully! > > <I do. I am a solidified memory track of being a separate doer.> > > This is a *me* talking and a *me* isn't real. > > Can you say what you are? > > <This > rigid structure of knowledge is the ego. This structure knows that it > has to do things by itself. Ridiculous, yet that is the truth. :-)> > > It is 'okay' to talk about me and what I do in my work etc what hobbies I like etc, it does no good or to no benefit to try and separate the ego as a separate *it* thing because it is the *me* / ego that is itself doing the separating! > > 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 June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > The ego does have a temporary seperate quantum existence. That > existence has a meaning for the spark of divinity (I am) that 'you' > ultimately are. It is its path to self knowledge and liberation from > form. > > The individuality of the ego is part of a more or less infinite > diversity that characterises the finite quantum physical world. In my > view, the fact that it is so diverse and we assume created by a great > Intelligence means that the seperate parts are fundamentally > important in the scheme of things (totality) even beyond space and > time where they exist. > > Eric Hi, This made me think: what if the parts of the world are completely meaningless. Not in a negative way of being meaningless, but in a total freedom way. I put meaning to things in the world and my life, but maybe the meaning I give things are way wrong! I only give meaning to that which is old. As Krisnamurti said: " thinking is always old " . What if I dropped my attached meaning to that which is old, and become aware of what is really new? What is really new? This moment is really new, isn't it? What if I realized that what is old is not needed in order for me to handle life? That's freedom, that's a relief from a terrible burden, that is perhaps what Krishnamurti meant by " Freedom from the known " . This moment holds itself in place with or without me thinking old thoughts which I think is needed to handle the future. What future? Without thoughts about the future, where is the future? And without thoughts about the future, what is there for me to be able to handle? The present moment? The present moment is probably perfectly fine without my thoughts about the future. I find little meaning in the present moment because I have 99% of all my meaning existing in the past and as ideas about the " future " . What if I found 99% meaning in the present moment and rendered past and future virtually meaningless. That's the death of the ego, isn't it? :-) /AL > > Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > <I do. I am a solidified memory track of being a separate doer.> > > > > This is a *me* talking and a *me* isn't real. > > > > Can you say what you are? > > > > <This > > rigid structure of knowledge is the ego. This structure knows that > it > > has to do things by itself. Ridiculous, yet that is the truth. :-) > > > > > It is 'okay' to talk about me and what I do in my work etc what > hobbies I like etc, it does no good or to no benefit to try and > separate the ego as a separate *it* thing because it is the *me* / > ego that is itself doing the separating! > > > > 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 June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Absolutely agree with all that. Living in the now is freedom from the little animal ego with its delusion of personal choice but whose reality, as Ramesh has said is more like a programmed computer. The Now gives as access to the infinite possiblities of Divine creativity free of the chains of memory. That is Union, the death of the small 'me' which falls to the ground and bears fruit as Jesus put it. thanks for your insight Eric Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > > The ego does have a temporary seperate quantum existence. That > > existence has a meaning for the spark of divinity (I am) that 'you' > > ultimately are. It is its path to self knowledge and liberation > from > > form. > > > > The individuality of the ego is part of a more or less infinite > > diversity that characterises the finite quantum physical world. In > my > > view, the fact that it is so diverse and we assume created by a > great > > Intelligence means that the seperate parts are fundamentally > > important in the scheme of things (totality) even beyond space and > > time where they exist. > > > > Eric > > Hi, > > This made me think: what if the parts of the world are completely > meaningless. Not in a negative way of being meaningless, but in a > total freedom way. I put meaning to things in the world and my life, > but maybe the meaning I give things are way wrong! I only give > meaning to that which is old. As Krisnamurti said: " thinking is > always old " . What if I dropped my attached meaning to that which is > old, and become aware of what is really new? What is really new? This > moment is really new, isn't it? What if I realized that what is old > is not needed in order for me to handle life? That's freedom, that's > a relief from a terrible burden, that is perhaps what Krishnamurti > meant by " Freedom from the known " . This moment holds itself in place > with or without me thinking old thoughts which I think is needed to > handle the future. What future? Without thoughts about the future, > where is the future? And without thoughts about the future, what is > there for me to be able to handle? The present moment? The present > moment is probably perfectly fine without my thoughts about the > future. I find little meaning in the present moment because I have > 99% of all my meaning existing in the past and as ideas about > the " future " . What if I found 99% meaning in the present moment and > rendered past and future virtually meaningless. That's the death of > the ego, isn't it? :-) > > /AL > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > Absolutely agree with all that. > > Living in the now is freedom from the little animal ego with its > delusion of personal choice but whose reality, as Ramesh has said is > more like a programmed computer. > > The Now gives as access to the infinite possiblities of Divine > creativity free of the chains of memory. That is Union, the death of > the small 'me' which falls to the ground and bears fruit as Jesus put > it. > > > thanks for your insight > > > Eric " Look at the lilies in the field, they neither sow nor reap. " This is Jesus speaking about pure awareness in the present moment I believe. The awareness of the present moment in itself creates an effortless wholeness that we often miss because there is an internal conflict going on inside of us: it is the present " me " thinking about a past " me " and a future " me " , and how all of these me:s shall handle the world seen as separate from them. It is all an internal struggle, but the ego cannot see that this conflict, this constant battle is altogether being played out inside the one and the same mind. /AL > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > > > The ego does have a temporary seperate quantum existence. That > > > existence has a meaning for the spark of divinity (I am) > that 'you' > > > ultimately are. It is its path to self knowledge and liberation > > from > > > form. > > > > > > The individuality of the ego is part of a more or less infinite > > > diversity that characterises the finite quantum physical world. > In > > my > > > view, the fact that it is so diverse and we assume created by a > > great > > > Intelligence means that the seperate parts are fundamentally > > > important in the scheme of things (totality) even beyond space > and > > > time where they exist. > > > > > > Eric > > > > Hi, > > > > This made me think: what if the parts of the world are completely > > meaningless. Not in a negative way of being meaningless, but in a > > total freedom way. I put meaning to things in the world and my > life, > > but maybe the meaning I give things are way wrong! I only give > > meaning to that which is old. As Krisnamurti said: " thinking is > > always old " . What if I dropped my attached meaning to that which is > > old, and become aware of what is really new? What is really new? > This > > moment is really new, isn't it? What if I realized that what is old > > is not needed in order for me to handle life? That's freedom, > that's > > a relief from a terrible burden, that is perhaps what Krishnamurti > > meant by " Freedom from the known " . This moment holds itself in > place > > with or without me thinking old thoughts which I think is needed to > > handle the future. What future? Without thoughts about the future, > > where is the future? And without thoughts about the future, what is > > there for me to be able to handle? The present moment? The present > > moment is probably perfectly fine without my thoughts about the > > future. I find little meaning in the present moment because I have > > 99% of all my meaning existing in the past and as ideas about > > the " future " . What if I found 99% meaning in the present moment and > > rendered past and future virtually meaningless. That's the death of > > the ego, isn't it? :-) > > > > /AL > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Hi again, <Yes, there is only Now. At least I haven't seen anything other than this Now.> Yes, there is one now NOW and we particularize particular nows. > <It is Time as > an automatic process making things happen.> > > Time *does not* make things happen, it *is* the happening of things in comparison to movement in space.> <Time is the process itself, yes. If it is automatic or not I don't know, but at least a very big " part " of this process seems automatic.> Time truly does not exist *in itself* only movement in space. The potential for things to happen, the potential for things to be is only and ever the potential for movement in space. > <Action happens, deeds are > done, but there is no individual doer thereof.> > > There both *is and isn't* and then no-one to say so either. <We can see that time as being change in the moment is the major doer. > No, time does not and cannot do anything, it is a layering that we GIVE to reality. <If there are also individual doers able to act and cause change by themselves I don't know> Individual doers can and do do. <but it seems to me that no individual person can change the Universe by himself or herself.> This infinitude of doers is what makes the universe what it is moment by moment. <It seems to me that real choice can only exist if the person making the choice actually alter the course of the Universe by using personal volition.> Yes, and that is exactly what happens. > Change is time, not the other way around. <Change and time are different names of the same aspect. But time as seen as a separate " thing " or force making other things happen is clearly dubious. " I don't have enough time " , we often say. But we could also say that there is always enough time. :-)> No, time depends on change and not the other way around > <Everything just happens.> > > It is all a matter of *perspective* > > Scott. <I have the perspective that I am the doer. But I would like to have the perspective Ramesh Balsekar talks about. It seems to me that my personal " free will " is the most tiny and frustrating thing there is. I look at the world how it just happens. I look in wonder at the magic that holds every particle in the Universe connected in such intricate patters as to create cars and human beings. I know that it is not human beings who are responsible for holding every particle together in such correct synch. I know that I don't create my own body, or my mind, or my awareness, or my thoughts, or my feelings, and _yet_ it feels like I am the one making choices and that I am compelled to make these choices.> I disagree with Balsekar when he says there is no free will; there is, just from different viewpoints, in other words there both is and isn't, he is looking at things from one viewpoint only and not the other. Scott > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > <Yes, there is only Now. At least I haven't seen anything other than > this Now.> > > Yes, there is one now NOW and we particularize particular nows. > > > > <It is Time as > > an automatic process making things happen.> > > > > Time *does not* make things happen, it *is* the happening of things > in comparison to movement in space.> > > <Time is the process itself, yes. If it is automatic or not I don't > know, but at least a very big " part " of this process seems automatic.> > > Time truly does not exist *in itself* only movement in space. The potential for things to happen, the potential for things to be is only and ever the potential for movement in space. > > > > <Action happens, deeds are > > done, but there is no individual doer thereof.> > > > > There both *is and isn't* and then no-one to say so either. > > <We can see that time as being change in the moment is the major doer. > > > No, time does not and cannot do anything, it is a layering that we GIVE to reality. I talk about time here as change. The present moment becomes new in each instant, an that change is what I call time. It is the total process of change itself I call time. And my guess is that this change is all the change there is. A person cannot alter time, cannot make time speed up or slow down. > > > <If there are also individual doers able to act and cause change by > themselves I don't know> > > Individual doers can and do do. As I see it it is the moment that changes by itself making energy take on new configurations. The ego is just the idea of being a doer that comes as a thought/idea/feeling together with the act/choice/doing, and in that sense, yes, there is the appearance of individual doers, but every thought/feeling/choice that comes to the human being's awareness has already happened when being observed by that human mind. Since an individual person cannot alter the course of time, then personal free will, if there really is such thing, must operate in another " dimension " than time, something that could be possible, but it requires a very far strech of imagination to see how that could be possible. For example, how can there be free will without depending on a past? And if free will is dependent on the past, then is it really free will? And even if it is free will how utterly limited it is! Time creates Universes. Time created you. Time creates your body, brain, mind, thoughts, feelings, why not even you choices? The definition used here: Time = the process of change in the moment. > > <but it seems to me that no individual person > can change the Universe by himself or herself.> > > This infinitude of doers is what makes the universe what it is moment by moment. Yes! Now we are getting somewhere. Everything in an infinite complex wholeness where everything is connected to everything else. When you move your arm, even the most distant stars are affected. When the planets move, your entire body is affected. There are no separate events in the Universe as I see it. > > > > <It seems to me that > real choice can only exist if the person making the choice actually > alter the course of the Universe by using personal volition.> > > Yes, and that is exactly what happens. Ok, good luck with altering the course of the Universe. :-) Don't forget to tell Time to move its ass your way so that the future can happen according to your will. Don't forget to tell Time to create the thoughts you want to have, in order for you to have free will. > > > Change is time, not the other way around. > > <Change and time are different names of the same aspect. But time as > seen as a separate " thing " or force making other things happen is > clearly dubious. " I don't have enough time " , we often say. But we > could also say that there is always enough time. :-)> > > No, time depends on change and not the other way around We can say that change itself is time. > > > > <Everything just happens.> > > > > It is all a matter of *perspective* > > > > Scott. > > <I have the perspective that I am the doer. But I would like to have > the perspective Ramesh Balsekar talks about. It seems to me that my > personal " free will " is the most tiny and frustrating thing there is. > I look at the world how it just happens. I look in wonder at the > magic that holds every particle in the Universe connected in such > intricate patters as to create cars and human beings. I know that it > is not human beings who are responsible for holding every particle > together in such correct synch. I know that I don't create my own > body, or my mind, or my awareness, or my thoughts, or my feelings, > and _yet_ it feels like I am the one making choices and that I am > compelled to make these choices.> > > I disagree with Balsekar when he says there is no free will; there is, just from different viewpoints, in other words there both is and isn't, he is looking at things from one viewpoint only and not the other. > > Scott Yes, there are Sages who say that there is neither free will or not free will. I myself think of the Universe as an automatic Matrix " made " of pure consciousness without size, substance or form, and that this indestructible Matrix has infinite " computing " power, and even thought running as an automatic machine, the capacity of it is so great that it can easily simulate personal free will with infinite precision. :-) This Matrix can create an infinite number of Universes in the time of zero seconds. That should be free will enough for you. ;-) For fun, check out: http://www.2012.com.au/real_matrix.html /AL > > > > > > > > > > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger > > 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.