Guest guest Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 I don't know if there is a way back to the Self, but what I mean by Self is the World in action as a Totality. Not the self and the world, but the Self _as_ the world. Clearly there is a separate self, I experience that as a fact. This self is a part of the world. This self is also a separate entity in the same way a table is a separate entity. A table is what it is an cannot be removed from the world. We can burn the table so that it becomes ash. Similarly, the self can perhaps burn in the flames of truth so that the separate entity that is one's ordinary daily life experience is removed. Then the Self would be revealed. A chick recently hatched is the same chick that was inside the egg, but the outside world could only appear by breaking the egg shell. The chick inside the egg is the self with its experience of separation, and the chick outside the egg is the Self. Very simply: the self is the idea that I do this and that. The Self is the realization that I do everything. That, at least, is my theory. Does this mean, as the Self, that a person I meet on the street, that I do that? Am I making the person be what he or she is, say, think, feel and do? The answer is: Yes. I do that. I do everything. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 > >I don't know if there is a way back to the Self, but what I mean by >Self is the World in action as a Totality. Not the self and the >world, but the Self _as_ the world. Clearly there is a separate self, >I experience that as a fact. This self is a part of the world. This >self is also a separate entity in the same way a table is a separate >entity. A table is what it is an cannot be removed from the world. We >can burn the table so that it becomes ash. Similarly, the self can >perhaps burn in the flames of truth so that the separate entity that >is one's ordinary daily life experience is removed. Then the Self >would be revealed. A chick recently hatched is the same chick that >was inside the egg, but the outside world could only appear by >breaking the egg shell. The chick inside the egg is the self with its >experience of separation, and the chick outside the egg is the Self. > >Very simply: the self is the idea that I do this and that. The Self >is the realization that I do everything. That, at least, is my theory. > >Does this mean, as the Self, that a person I meet on the street, that >I do that? Am I making the person be what he or she is, say, think, >feel and do? The answer is: Yes. I do that. I do everything. :-) > >/AL No, I don't think you do everything...self, as I assume you are using it, is the notion of a separate self. Correct? and Self, am assuming is the " I Am " or the understanding that you are a part of Consciousness. self, doesn't do anything......and Self, or I Am, is just a part of Consciousness...NOT ALL of Consciousness. > >** > >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 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Very simply: the self is the idea that I do this and that. The Self is the realization that I do everything. That, at least, is my theory. hmm, Anders...you must have very much to do! :-) Have you found time to read Nisargadatta's " I am that " ? Do it, it is a great experience! What do you mean actually by the Self, can you expand on this? sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 " There was a house, and in the house there was a person; now the person is gone and the house is demolished. The sum total is, whatever experiences you have, whether for a day or for years, it is all illusion. The experiences begin with knowingness. What is the most ingrained habit you have? It is to say " I Am'. This is the root habit. Words and experiences are unworthy of you. This habit of experiencing will not go until you realize that all this domain of the five elements, are unreal, This " I Amness " is itself unreal. " Niz Maharaj Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Very simply: the self is the idea that I do this and that. The Self > is the realization that I do everything. That, at least, is my > theory. > > hmm, Anders...you must have very much to do! :-) Have you found time > to read Nisargadatta's " I am that " ? Do it, it is a great experience! > > What do you mean actually by the Self, can you expand on this? > > sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , RL_FPI@x wrote: > > > > >I don't know if there is a way back to the Self, but what I mean by > >Self is the World in action as a Totality. Not the self and the > >world, but the Self _as_ the world. Clearly there is a separate self, > >I experience that as a fact. This self is a part of the world. This > >self is also a separate entity in the same way a table is a separate > >entity. A table is what it is an cannot be removed from the world. We > >can burn the table so that it becomes ash. Similarly, the self can > >perhaps burn in the flames of truth so that the separate entity that > >is one's ordinary daily life experience is removed. Then the Self > >would be revealed. A chick recently hatched is the same chick that > >was inside the egg, but the outside world could only appear by > >breaking the egg shell. The chick inside the egg is the self with its > >experience of separation, and the chick outside the egg is the Self. > > > >Very simply: the self is the idea that I do this and that. The Self > >is the realization that I do everything. That, at least, is my theory. > > > >Does this mean, as the Self, that a person I meet on the street, that > >I do that? Am I making the person be what he or she is, say, think, > >feel and do? The answer is: Yes. I do that. I do everything. :-) > > > >/AL > > No, I don't think you do everything...self, as I assume you are using it, > is the notion of a separate self. Correct? and Self, am assuming is the " I > Am " or the understanding that you are a part of Consciousness. self, > doesn't do anything......and Self, or I Am, is just a part of > Consciousness...NOT ALL of Consciousness. By Self I mean Totality. The Self is everything. There is nothing that is not Self. A car: the Self. A flower: the Self. A thought: the Self. A person: the Self. A star: the Self. A body: the Self. Consciosness: the Self. You: the Self. Me: the Self. Them: the Self. /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 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Very simply: the self is the idea that I do this and that. The Self > is the realization that I do everything. That, at least, is my > theory. > > hmm, Anders...you must have very much to do! :-) Have you found time > to read Nisargadatta's " I am that " ? Do it, it is a great experience! > > What do you mean actually by the Self, can you expand on this? > > sk Yes, I have read " I am That " . What I mean by Self is that the Self is everything. Every thing and every no-thing there is, has been and ever will be. A Totality. A Oneness. This Self is experiencing itself in many forms, but it is still only one Self, and this Self is all there is. The Self is the only doer, and the _only_ experiencer. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > " There was a house, and in the house there was a person; now the > person is gone and the house is demolished. The sum total is, > whatever experiences you have, whether for a day or for years, it is > all illusion. The experiences begin with knowingness. What is the > most ingrained habit you have? It is to say " I Am'. This is the root > habit. Words and experiences are unworthy of you. This habit of > experiencing will not go until you realize that all this domain of > the five elements, are unreal, This " I Amness " is itself unreal. " > > Niz Maharaj Yes, words in themselves are empty. Experiences are memories and the experiencer is also memories. Memories in themselves are empty, but with the division of memory into the experiencer and experiences a personality is formed. If we can connect to the Totality of everything, or rather, drop the disconnection, because we already are connected in a Totality, then memories maybe could be replaced by a state of Knowing which is the connection to all memories there is all the time. Then we Know everything there is to know, but the present moment is ever new, fresh and thus Knowing would only be a natural foundation for experiencing the ever new and fresh living moment. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > > Very simply: the self is the idea that I do this and that. The > Self > > is the realization that I do everything. That, at least, is my > > theory. > > > > hmm, Anders...you must have very much to do! :-) Have you found > time > > to read Nisargadatta's " I am that " ? Do it, it is a great experience! > > > > What do you mean actually by the Self, can you expand on this? > > > > sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 > Yes, I have read " I am That " . What I mean by Self is that the Self is > everything. Every thing and every no-thing there is, has been and > ever will be. A Totality. A Oneness. This Self is experiencing itself > in many forms, but it is still only one Self, and this Self is all > there is. The Self is the only doer, and the _only_ experiencer. > > /AL How about love, Anders? How does this fit in your world vision? Niz talks a lot about it? What do you think about it? sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > > Yes, I have read " I am That " . What I mean by Self is that the Self > is > > everything. Every thing and every no-thing there is, has been and > > ever will be. A Totality. A Oneness. This Self is experiencing > itself > > in many forms, but it is still only one Self, and this Self is all > > there is. The Self is the only doer, and the _only_ experiencer. > > > > /AL > > > How about love, Anders? How does this fit in your world vision? Niz > talks a lot about it? What do you think about it? > > > sk " Infinite love is the only truth. Everything else is illusion. " -- David Icke, sounding like he has read A Course in Miracles. :-) But I think both he and ACIM have got a point. Everything is one wholeness. This is so because everything has at least _some_ relation to something else or else it would not be a part of existence. If A is related to B and B related to C then there is at least an indirect connection between A and C. So, every " thing " is connected to every other " thing " . In reality I don't think there is a " thing " anywhere, just appearances of separations. When the world moves, it is a Totality in motion. That motion we can call Love. This is a very dry definition of love - it is like love is infinite complexity unfolding in an automatic way. Infinite complexity is also infinite intelligence and this we can call the Mind of God. Why then suffering? The answer is that infinite Love must rise out of that which is not love in order to be experienced and infinite intelligence want to experience things. If everything is love then love has to forget itself in the form of apparent separation. One of these separations is what we call the Big Bang; unified oneness exploding into a sea of seemingly separate particles that then begin to find its way back to oneness again: this is what we call evolution. So the appearance of separation and fear is a nescessary first step in order for love to experience itself. Love is constantly experiencing itself in the form of an infinite adventure. Don't you know ye are Gods? :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Hi Anders > " Infinite love is the only truth. Everything else is illusion. " > David Icke, sounding like he has read A Course in Miracles. :-) > But I think both he and ACIM have got a point. sk: Everyone has sometimes a good point! Everything is one wholeness. sk: Everything you experience, seems to be one wholeness for you. This is so because everything has at least _some_ relation to something else or else it would not be a part of existence. sk: Nothing independent can " exist " . That's rigt! Nothing new under the sun. A presocratic issue. Nargajuna's headache. And, before and after that, many other indian and other philosophers have spoken and written about it. If A > is related to B and B related to C then there is at least an indirect > connection between A and C. So, every " thing " is connected to every > other " thing " . In reality I don't think there is a " thing " anywhere, > just appearances of separations. sk: Indeed, even the apperception of wholeness is pure phenomenalty. Logical conclusions say much about things but, nothing else and nothing more. When the world moves, it is a Totality in motion. That motion we can call Love. This is a very dry definition of love - it is like love is infinite complexity unfolding in an automatic way. Infinite complexity is also infinite intelligence and this we can call the Mind of God. sk: This is your mind, your confabulation. Love, as the way infinite intelligence moves, attributing an automatism to an infinite complexity. Equating complexity to intelligence by giving it the attribute of infiniteness. How can totality move? Why should it move and whither? Is the antropomorphisation of " totality " as intelligence, and the supposed motion of itself, defined as love, by ludicrious rethorical comparisons justifiable, only by using the term infinite? What has God to do with that? > Why then suffering? sk: What for an mental leap! But, actually not, accurately viewed. You are incurring all the time, since you are posting here in the same mistake, and that is to think that yourself, your mind and consciousness is apart from supposed a " totality " , which you could be able to describe and define conceptually. And, worse, you are trying to equate the elaborations of your mind to the supposed mind of something, which doesn't exist in the conventional sense, i.e. a supposed " Mind of God " , or God itself. Then, you simply ask yourself, why then suffering, for God's sake? And we keep on hearing more confabulations The answer is that infinite Love must rise out of that which is not love in order to be experienced and infinite intelligence want to experience things. sk: Baloney! Struntprat! If everything is love then love has to forget itself in the form of apparent separation. sk: More struntprat! One of these separations is what we call the Big Bang; unified oneness exploding into a sea of seemingly separate particles that then begin to find its way back to oneness again: this is what we call evolution. sk: Oh my goodness, Anders! Are you going for the Nobel-prize? So the appearance of separation and fear is a nescessary first step in order for love to experience itself. Love is constantly experiencing itself in the form of an infinite adventure. sk: Struntprat! > Don't you know ye are Gods? :-) sk: No, I meditate, that keeps me from thinking such laughablenesses. Anders, you have understood a few things but you are drawing the wrong conclusions in an " absolute " disproportional way, in my opinion. Take care! sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders > > > > " Infinite love is the only truth. Everything else is illusion. " > > David Icke, sounding like he has read A Course in Miracles. :-) > > But I think both he and ACIM have got a point. > > > sk: Everyone has sometimes a good point! > > > Everything is one wholeness. > > > sk: Everything you experience, seems to be one wholeness for you. > > > This is so because everything has at least _some_ relation > to something else or else it would not be a part of existence. > > > sk: Nothing independent can " exist " . That's rigt! Nothing new under > the sun. A presocratic issue. Nargajuna's headache. And, before and > after that, many other indian and other philosophers have spoken and > written about it. > > > > If A > > is related to B and B related to C then there is at least an > indirect > > connection between A and C. So, every " thing " is connected to > every > > other " thing " . In reality I don't think there is a " thing " > anywhere, > > just appearances of separations. > > > sk: Indeed, even the apperception of wholeness is pure phenomenalty. > Logical conclusions say much about things but, nothing else and > nothing more. > > > > When the world moves, it is a Totality in motion. That motion we can > call Love. This is a very dry definition of love - it is like love > is infinite complexity unfolding in an automatic way. Infinite > complexity is also infinite intelligence and this we can call the > Mind of God. > > > sk: This is your mind, your confabulation. Love, as the way infinite > intelligence moves, attributing an automatism to an infinite > complexity. Equating complexity to intelligence by giving it the > attribute of infiniteness. How can totality move? Why should it move > and whither? Is the antropomorphisation of " totality " as > intelligence, and the supposed motion of itself, defined as love, by > ludicrious rethorical comparisons justifiable, only by using the > term infinite? What has God to do with that? Think of God as Totality. God does not move. Totality does not change. This Totality is infinite intelligence, and we are points of " nothing " moving inside this Totality. There is nothing that moves. > > > > Why then suffering? > > > sk: What for an mental leap! But, actually not, accurately viewed. > You are incurring all the time, since you are posting here in the > same mistake, and that is to think that yourself, your mind and > consciousness is apart from supposed a " totality " , which you could > be able to describe and define conceptually. And, worse, you are > trying to equate the elaborations of your mind to the supposed mind > of something, which doesn't exist in the conventional sense, i.e. a > supposed " Mind of God " , or God itself. Then, you simply ask > yourself, why then suffering, for God's sake? And we keep on hearing > more confabulations The process of thinking is only flicker of ignorance in the infinite realms of the Absolute. > > > > > The answer is that infinite Love must rise out of that which is not > love in order to be experienced and infinite intelligence want to > experience things. > > > sk: Baloney! Struntprat! Without the illusion of what is not, that which is cannot be experienced. > > > If everything is love then love has to forget itself in the form of > apparent separation. > > > sk: More struntprat! The sun cannot see itself. > > > One of these separations is what we call the Big Bang; unified > oneness exploding into a sea of seemingly separate particles that > then begin to find its way back to oneness again: this is what we > call evolution. > > > sk: Oh my goodness, Anders! Are you going for the Nobel-prize? In Totality there has been and will be an infinte number of " persons " winning some sort of Nobel prize every nanosecond. An infinite number of universes created in the time of zero seconds. Infinite intelligence needs Nobel prize only as a form of entertainment. :-) > > > So the appearance of separation and fear is a nescessary > first step in order for love to experience itself. Love is > constantly experiencing itself in the form of an infinite adventure. > > > sk: Struntprat! How do you know this? Are you afraid of your own hopes? > > > > Don't you know ye are Gods? :-) > > > sk: No, I meditate, that keeps me from thinking such > laughablenesses. Anders, you have understood a few things but you > are drawing the wrong conclusions in an " absolute " disproportional > way, in my opinion. > > > Take care! > > > sk You don't meditate. You cannot do anything. You are being _done_. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Hi Anders, AL: When the world moves, it is a Totality in motion. That motion we can call Love. This is a very dry definition of love - it is like love is infinite complexity unfolding in an automatic way. Infinite complexity is also infinite intelligence and this we can call the Mind of God. sk: This is your mind, your confabulation. Love, as the way infinite intelligence moves, attributing an automatism to an infinite complexity. Equating complexity to intelligence by giving it the attribute of infiniteness. How can totality move? Why should it move and whither? Is the antropomorphisation of " totality " as intelligence, and the supposed motion of itself, defined as love, by ludicrious rethorical comparisons justifiable, only by using the term infinite? What has God to do with that? AL: There is nothing that moves. sk: Ok, what are we talking about? AL: Why then suffering? sk: What for an mental leap! But, actually not, accurately viewed. You are incurring all the time, since you are posting here in the same mistake, and that is to think that yourself, your mind and consciousness is apart from a supposed " totality " , which you could be able to describe and define conceptually. And, worse, you are trying to equate the elaborations of your mind to the supposed mind of something, which doesn't exist in the conventional sense, i.e. a supposed " Mind of God " , or God itself. Then, you simply ask yourself, why then suffering, for God's sake? And we keep on hearing more confabulations AL: The process of thinking is only flicker of ignorance in the infinite realms of the Absolute. sk: Why do you think that then? The answer is that infinite Love must rise out of that which is not love in order to be experienced and infinite intelligence want to experience things. sk: Baloney! Struntprat! AL: Without the illusion of what is not, that which is cannot be experienced. sk: I'm not interested in illusions. AL: If everything is love then love has to forget itself in the form of apparent separation. sk: More struntprat! AL: The sun cannot see itself. sk:...and nothing else. AL: One of these separations is what we call the Big Bang; unified oneness exploding into a sea of seemingly separate particles that then begin to find its way back to oneness again: this is what we call evolution. sk: Oh my goodness, Anders! Are you going for the Nobel-prize? AL: In Totality there has been and will be an infinte number of " persons " winning some sort of Nobel prize every nanosecond. An infinite number of universes created in the time of zero seconds. Infinite intelligence needs Nobel prize only as a form of entertainment. :-) sk: Struntprat and köttbullar (meatballs)! So the appearance of separation and fear is a nescessary first step in order for love to experience itself. Love is constantly experiencing itself in the form of an infinite adventure. sk: Struntprat! AL: How do you know this? Are you afraid of your own hopes? sk: It is my opinion reading your elaborations. Why should I be afraid of something I don't have ie. hopes and illusions. Don't you know ye are Gods? :-) sk: No, I meditate, that keeps me from thinking such laughablenesses. Anders, you have understood a few things but you are drawing the wrong conclusions in an " absolute " disproportional way, in my opinion. AL: You don't meditate. You cannot do anything. You are being _done_. :-) sk:...and not even that! BTW, are you representing some religious group? sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Hi Sk, Great post! And thank you, for giving your fellow Sweed a little attention. He needs it. Have you noticed, if Sweeden bought Mount Vesubio from Italy? I feel Anders is erupting and trying to bury us in posts. Which one you want to be Pompeii, or Herculanus? I have notice that Anders has a fixation with certain ideas. Like the body is dead, and nothing exist but consciousness because nothing happens now. He has repeated this almost in every other post, as if he is trying to convince himself, and make this idea into a protecting reality. This concept seems to have become his escape route from some heavy trauma in his past. Just playing shrink here, sorry. Don't mean to practice without a license, that's your department anyway. Pete Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders, > > > > AL: When the world moves, it is a Totality in motion. That motion we > can call Love. This is a very dry definition of love - it is like > love is infinite complexity unfolding in an automatic way. Infinite > complexity is also infinite intelligence and this we can call the > Mind of God. > > > sk: This is your mind, your confabulation. Love, as the way > infinite intelligence moves, attributing an automatism to an > infinite complexity. Equating complexity to intelligence by giving > it the attribute of infiniteness. How can totality move? Why should > it move and whither? Is the antropomorphisation of " totality " as > intelligence, and the supposed motion of itself, defined as love, > by ludicrious rethorical comparisons justifiable, only by using the > term infinite? What has God to do with that? > > > > AL: There is nothing that moves. > > > sk: Ok, what are we talking about? > > > AL: Why then suffering? > > > sk: What for an mental leap! But, actually not, accurately viewed. > You are incurring all the time, since you are posting here in the > same mistake, and that is to think that yourself, your mind and > consciousness is apart from a supposed " totality " , which you could > be able to describe and define conceptually. And, worse, you are > trying to equate the elaborations of your mind to the supposed mind > of something, which doesn't exist in the conventional sense, i.e. a > supposed " Mind of God " , or God itself. Then, you simply ask > yourself, why then suffering, for God's sake? And we keep on > hearing more confabulations > > > AL: The process of thinking is only flicker of ignorance in the > infinite realms of the Absolute. > > > sk: Why do you think that then? > > > The answer is that infinite Love must rise out of that which is not > love in order to be experienced and infinite intelligence want to > experience things. > > > sk: Baloney! Struntprat! > > > AL: Without the illusion of what is not, that which is cannot be > experienced. > > > sk: I'm not interested in illusions. > > > AL: If everything is love then love has to forget itself in the form > of apparent separation. > > > sk: More struntprat! > > > AL: The sun cannot see itself. > > > sk:...and nothing else. > > > > AL: One of these separations is what we call the Big Bang; unified > oneness exploding into a sea of seemingly separate particles that > then begin to find its way back to oneness again: this is what we > call evolution. > > > sk: Oh my goodness, Anders! Are you going for the Nobel-prize? > > > AL: In Totality there has been and will be an infinte number > of " persons " winning some sort of Nobel prize every nanosecond. An > infinite number of universes created in the time of zero seconds. > Infinite intelligence needs Nobel prize only as a form of > entertainment. :-) > > > sk: Struntprat and köttbullar (meatballs)! > > > So the appearance of separation and fear is a nescessary > first step in order for love to experience itself. Love is > constantly experiencing itself in the form of an infinite adventure. > > > sk: Struntprat! > > > AL: How do you know this? Are you afraid of your own hopes? > > > sk: It is my opinion reading your elaborations. Why should I be > afraid of something I don't have ie. hopes and illusions. > > > Don't you know ye are Gods? :-) > > > sk: No, I meditate, that keeps me from thinking such > laughablenesses. Anders, you have understood a few things but you > are drawing the wrong conclusions in an " absolute " disproportional > way, in my opinion. > > > AL: You don't meditate. You cannot do anything. You are being > _done_. :-) > > > sk:...and not even that! > > > BTW, are you representing some religious group? > > > > sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 LOL, Pete! And thank you, for giving your fellow Sweed a little attention. He needs it. sk: I know, seems to be boring to live in Sweden! Ha! Have you noticed, if Sweeden bought Mount Vesubio from Italy? sk: They cannot, they don't even have " Euros " , afraid as they are, of the rest of Europa I feel Anders is erupting and trying to bury us in posts. sk: Yes, that's what I tried to say all the time. There is nothing esoteric in trying to get rid of ones personal neurosis. > I have notice that Anders has a fixation with certain ideas. > Like the body is dead, and nothing exist but consciousness > because nothing happens now. He has repeated this almost > in every other post, as if he is trying to convince himself, > and make this idea into a protecting reality. This concept > seems to have become his escape route from some heavy trauma > in his past. Just playing shrink here, sorry. Don't mean to > practice without a license, that's your department anyway. sk: No problem, I think you do it quiet well. Actually I thought it could be something for Danielito-san's department. HH Sandeep has lost soon interest, like always Just kidding LOve sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders, > > > > AL: When the world moves, it is a Totality in motion. That motion we > can call Love. This is a very dry definition of love - it is like > love is infinite complexity unfolding in an automatic way. Infinite > complexity is also infinite intelligence and this we can call the > Mind of God. > > > sk: This is your mind, your confabulation. Love, as the way > infinite intelligence moves, attributing an automatism to an > infinite complexity. Equating complexity to intelligence by giving > it the attribute of infiniteness. How can totality move? Why should > it move and whither? Is the antropomorphisation of " totality " as > intelligence, and the supposed motion of itself, defined as love, > by ludicrious rethorical comparisons justifiable, only by using the > term infinite? What has God to do with that? > > > > AL: There is nothing that moves. > > > sk: Ok, what are we talking about? We are talking about Maya. Think of Absolute existence as an immovable crystal ball containing all that is, has been and ever will be. This is consciousness, Absolute awareness. Now picture yourself a a point inside this crystal ball. The point is nothing in itself, it is just a position. And the experience of that unique point leads to the experience of another point inside this immovable crystal ball. Nothing has moved, nothing has changed, is is just the experience of one point leading to another point and so on that creates the appearance of time. Nothing is being destroyed or created. Reality does not change or move. > > > AL: Why then suffering? > > > sk: What for an mental leap! But, actually not, accurately viewed. > You are incurring all the time, since you are posting here in the > same mistake, and that is to think that yourself, your mind and > consciousness is apart from a supposed " totality " , which you could > be able to describe and define conceptually. And, worse, you are > trying to equate the elaborations of your mind to the supposed mind > of something, which doesn't exist in the conventional sense, i.e. a > supposed " Mind of God " , or God itself. Then, you simply ask > yourself, why then suffering, for God's sake? And we keep on > hearing more confabulations > > > AL: The process of thinking is only flicker of ignorance in the > infinite realms of the Absolute. > > > sk: Why do you think that then? Because what happens happen. There is no doer able to do anything. > > > The answer is that infinite Love must rise out of that which is not > love in order to be experienced and infinite intelligence want to > experience things. > > > sk: Baloney! Struntprat! > > > AL: Without the illusion of what is not, that which is cannot be > experienced. > > > sk: I'm not interested in illusions. It is not up to you to decide this. The decision you are making now, that you have made in the past and the choices you will make in the future, the thoughts, ideas, opinions e t c you have is nothing you do. > > > AL: If everything is love then love has to forget itself in the form > of apparent separation. > > > sk: More struntprat! > > > AL: The sun cannot see itself. > > > sk:...and nothing else. > > > > AL: One of these separations is what we call the Big Bang; unified > oneness exploding into a sea of seemingly separate particles that > then begin to find its way back to oneness again: this is what we > call evolution. > > > sk: Oh my goodness, Anders! Are you going for the Nobel-prize? > > > AL: In Totality there has been and will be an infinte number > of " persons " winning some sort of Nobel prize every nanosecond. An > infinite number of universes created in the time of zero seconds. > Infinite intelligence needs Nobel prize only as a form of > entertainment. :-) > > > sk: Struntprat and köttbullar (meatballs)! You may believe that reality cannot handle itself without Nobel prize winning " persons " or human being doing this or that. But no one is doing anything. It's like saying that figures in a movie do this and that, and they do, but only in the form of an appearance. > > > So the appearance of separation and fear is a nescessary > first step in order for love to experience itself. Love is > constantly experiencing itself in the form of an infinite adventure. > > > sk: Struntprat! > > > AL: How do you know this? Are you afraid of your own hopes? > > > sk: It is my opinion reading your elaborations. Why should I be > afraid of something I don't have ie. hopes and illusions. You may have hopes tomorrow, you don't know that, and it is not up to you to decide this. As Ramesh Balsekar says: " No one really knows what will happen next " , and " Everything just happens " , and he says that this is what Buddha said: " Action happens, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof " > > > Don't you know ye are Gods? :-) > > > sk: No, I meditate, that keeps me from thinking such > laughablenesses. Anders, you have understood a few things but you > are drawing the wrong conclusions in an " absolute " disproportional > way, in my opinion. > > > AL: You don't meditate. You cannot do anything. You are being > _done_. :-) > > > sk:...and not even that! > > > BTW, are you representing some religious group? Not at the moment. :-) > > > > sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Hi Anders! AL: Reality does not change or move. sk: See this just as working hypothesis for a while. Many conclusion can derive of it. The point we are discusing here is, what conclusions drew Anders Lindman out of this insight. Nothing else. Now, let's see! AL: Because what happens happen. There is no doer able to do anything. sk: According to your theory...what happens, happened, actually. It is true, that nobody can change the past but, we can learn out of it. You and me and every other human being in this world has got the " divine " gift of being able to learn, despite all. The best way to learn is to observe oneself, and, to decide by the heart, but implacably, if you have done the neccessary things and omit the prejudicial and unneccessary things. This is a process until you learn to do and think the " right thing " spontaneuosly, " instinctively " , so to say. sk: I'm not interested in illusions. AL: It is not up to you to decide this. sk: Yes it is, I came to this conclusion observing myself and my thoughts. AL: The decision you are making now, that you have made in the past and the choices you will make in the future, the thoughts, ideas, opinions e t c you have is nothing you do. sk: The apprehension of this statement doesn't constitute a kind of " end-stage " in whatsoever. It is just a beginning. AL: You may believe that reality cannot handle itself without Nobel prize winning " persons " or human being doing this or that. But no one is doing anything. It's like saying that figures in a movie do this and that, and they do, but only in the form of an appearance. sk: Ridiculous, Anders, as well as the story about the " Big-Bang " . Culture, science, social structures, economy, politics all that stuff goes surely down to something we call phenomenalty. But, these structures offered you a life in dignity, there, were you live. You've got an education, food, a job, medical care, when ever you need it, and abundance of time and resources, to publish your statements, here on this list. Your statement above is completely unacceptable, from every possible point of view. You are drawing absurd conclusions about me, reality (whatever that means to you), persons, the Nobel-prize and, particularly, about yourself. You are not telling us something new, Anders. Listen a little more! Perhaps not to me, but, to the things all the other participants write here. AL: You may have hopes tomorrow, you don't know that, and it is not up to you to decide this. sk:...and, it is not up to you. Focus on yourself, not on me. As Ramesh Balsekar says: " No one really knows what will happen next " , and " Everything just happens " , and he says that this is what Buddha said: " Action happens, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof " sk: Indeed. What do you think, do they by mean by it? They just gave you the tools. You have been able to recognice it. Congratulations! But, now, you have to use the tools. Use the hammer to drive in nails and the the gripper to pull them out. Buddha and Balsekar are not saying, that it doesn't matter now, how you will use the tools in the future. Quiet the opposite, you've got more responsabilities by beginning to see clearly. You will not have more excuses. You have become an adult and left behind your childhood. It would be a calamity....if it wouldn't constitute the essence of love. sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders! > > > > AL: Reality does not change or move. > > > sk: See this just as working hypothesis for a while. Many conclusion > can derive of it. The point we are discusing here is, what > conclusions drew Anders Lindman out of this insight. Nothing else. > Now, let's see! > > > AL: Because what happens happen. There is no doer able to do > anything. > > > sk: According to your theory...what happens, happened, actually. It > is true, that nobody can change the past but, we can learn out of > it. You and me and every other human being in this world has got > the " divine " gift of being able to learn, despite all. The best way > to learn is to observe oneself, and, to decide by the heart, but > implacably, if you have done the neccessary things and omit the > prejudicial and unneccessary things. This is a process until you > learn to do and think the " right thing " > spontaneuosly, " instinctively " , so to say. Yes, learning may be a nescessary part of existence. > > > sk: I'm not interested in illusions. > > > AL: It is not up to you to decide this. > > > sk: Yes it is, I came to this conclusion observing myself and my > thoughts. Maybe you are making your own choices. But are you sure it is not only just a _feeling_ of being the one making the choice that you can lean on? And who creates that feeling in you? You? If you are able to create your own feelings, can you create yourself happy and peaceful? > > > AL: The decision you are making now, that you have made in the past > and the choices you will make in the future, the thoughts, ideas, > opinions e t c you have is nothing you do. > > > sk: The apprehension of this statement doesn't constitute a kind > of " end-stage " in whatsoever. It is just a beginning. All thoughts and feeling such as a decision-making process has already been created when it appears in your awareness. Everything you become aware of has alredy been done. Even the idea " now I am making a choice " has alredy been created as a part of the whole package when you become aware of this idea. > > > > AL: You may believe that reality cannot handle itself without Nobel > prize winning " persons " or human being doing this or that. But no > one is doing anything. It's like saying that figures in a movie do > this and that, and they do, but only in the form of an appearance. > > > sk: Ridiculous, Anders, as well as the story about the " Big-Bang " . > Culture, science, social structures, economy, politics all that > stuff goes surely down to something we call phenomenalty. But, these > structures offered you a life in dignity, there, were you live. > You've got an education, food, a job, medical care, when ever you > need it, and abundance of time and resources, to publish your > statements, here on this list. Your statement above is completely > unacceptable, from every possible point of view. You are drawing > absurd conclusions about me, reality (whatever that means to you), > persons, the Nobel-prize and, particularly, about yourself. You are > not telling us something new, Anders. Listen a little more! Perhaps > not to me, but, to the things all the other participants write here. Think of existence as being Now. Only now. Zap! Like that. And a whole world is " created " in front of your eyes. There is no past in a real sense. There is only this instant. There has never been a you in the past. What you think of as you is only a memory created intantaneously now. The future creates the past. Not the other way around. > > > AL: You may have hopes tomorrow, you don't know that, and it is not > up to you to decide this. > > > sk:...and, it is not up to you. Focus on yourself, not on me. But you are me. :-) > > > As Ramesh Balsekar says: " No one really knows what will happen > next " , and " Everything just happens " , and he says that this is what > Buddha said: " Action happens, deeds are done, but there is no > individual doer thereof " > > > sk: Indeed. What do you think, do they by mean by it? They just gave > you the tools. You have been able to recognice it. Congratulations! > But, now, you have to use the tools. Use the hammer to drive in > nails and the the gripper to pull them out. Buddha and Balsekar are > not saying, that it doesn't matter now, how you will use the tools > in the future. Quiet the opposite, you've got more responsabilities > by beginning to see clearly. You will not have more excuses. You > have become an adult and left behind your childhood. It would be a > calamity....if it wouldn't constitute the essence of love. > > > > sk Drop all responsibilities so that you are aware and can act repsonsible in the present moment. The future is the world of the ego. Ramesh Balsekar makes a destinction between the working mind and the thinking mind. The working mind uses the past in order to do a good job in the present moment, but it stops at the present moment and does not project itself into a " future " . The thinking mind creates a future and gets tense and nervous over its own creation. Ask yourself: who is in the future? Or, rather, *what* is in the future, becuase it is clearly not you who are in the future, because you are now. You will come to the conclusion that the future is nothing but thoughts created now, and you are _not_ those thoughts. For practical purposes, sure a future is needed, but responsibility in the future? That is mechanical living. That is a fabricated sense of self steeped in pride believing itself to be God, a fragment with the insane idea that it is able to alter the course of the Universe by its own volition. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Hi Anders, :-) AL: Yes, learning may be a nescessary part of existence. sk: ...may be?! ) > > sk: I'm not interested in illusions. > > > > > > AL: It is not up to you to decide this. > > > > > > sk: Yes it is, I came to this conclusion observing myself and my > > thoughts. AL: Maybe you are making your own choices. sk: Maybe! ) But are you sure it is not only just a _feeling_ of being the one making the choice that you can lean on? And who creates that feeling in you? You? sk: I don't know. Do you know? AL: If you are able to create your own feelings, can you create yourself happy and peaceful? sk: I'm already happy and peacefull, why should I create something? AL: All thoughts and feeling such as a decision-making process has already been created when it appears in your awareness. Everything you become aware of has alredy been done. Even the idea " now I am making a choice " has alredy been created as a part of the whole package when you become aware of this idea. sk: There is somewhere a phrase, which says, that if someone repeats something more than 3 times succesively, it is, because he/herself in effect, doesn't believe in what he/she is saying. AL: ...the future creates the past. Not the other way around. sk:...and around and around and around..... AL: You may have hopes tomorrow, you don't know that, and it is not up to you to decide this. sk:...and, it is not up to you. Focus on yourself, not on me. AL: But you are me. :-) sk: That's exactly the reason why I said it! AL: Drop all responsibilities so that you are aware and can act repsonsible in the present moment. sk: Struntprat...it's all already done, my friend! Can you do something which hasn't already happened? AL: The future is the world of the ego. sk: Yes, your personal future, if you continue typing such callow nonsense! Ramesh Balsekar makes a destinction between the working mind and the thinking mind. The working mind uses the past in order to do a good job in the present moment, but it stops at the present moment and does not project itself into a " future " . The thinking mind creates a future and gets tense and nervous over its own creation. sk: I agree with Balsekar! AL: Ask yourself: who is in the future? Or, rather, *what* is in the future, becuase it is clearly not you who are in the future, because you are now. You will come to the conclusion that the future is nothing but thoughts created now, and you are _not_ those thoughts. sk: I like your perseveration, what about seriousness? AL: For practical purposes, sure a future is needed, but responsibility in the future? sk: My dentist always said, prevention and prophylaxis are the most important things. You are responsible for the state your teeth. I believed in what he said. He was right and he hasn't earned much money by treating me, at least, until now! Ha! AL: That is mechanical living. That is a fabricated sense of self steeped in pride believing itself to be God, a fragment with the insane idea that it is able to alter the course of the Universe by its own volition. sk: Don't worry! Life is like a cold, it passes by, no matter what you do.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders, > > :-) > > AL: Yes, learning may be a nescessary part of existence. > > > sk: ...may be?! ) Ok, probably a must be. I don't believe in chance. Everything happens in exact synchronicity I guess. > > > > > sk: I'm not interested in illusions. > > > > > > > > > AL: It is not up to you to decide this. > > > > > > > > > sk: Yes it is, I came to this conclusion observing myself and my > > > thoughts. > > > AL: Maybe you are making your own choices. > > > sk: Maybe! ) Yes, I think everything happens automatically, but I cannot prove this. > > > But are you sure it is not only just a _feeling_ of being the one > making the choice that you can lean on? And who creates that feeling > in you? You? > > > sk: I don't know. Do you know? If I create myself then I must be some sort of God, if I create my own choices or my own feelings, then I must some kind of God. I believe there is only One God, and that God is the only doer. We are that God, but our idea about being individual doers is probably a deliberate temporary misconception. > > > AL: If you are able to create your own feelings, can you create > yourself happy and peaceful? > > > sk: I'm already happy and peacefull, why should I create something? And I am worried and feeling pain. That is not fair! :-( :-) > > > AL: All thoughts and feeling such as a decision-making process has > already been created when it appears in your awareness. > Everything you become aware of has alredy been done. Even the > idea " now I am making a choice " has alredy been created as a part of > the whole package when you become aware of this idea. > > > sk: There is somewhere a phrase, which says, that if someone repeats > something more than 3 times succesively, it is, because he/herself > in effect, doesn't believe in what he/she is saying. So if I repeat in my thoughts more than 3 times: " I do this " , and " I do that " , then I don't really believe that I am the doer? ;-) People repeat the idea " I ... " thousands of times during a single day! > > > AL: ...the future creates the past. Not the other way around. > > > sk:...and around and around and around..... > > > AL: You may have hopes tomorrow, you don't know that, and it is not > up to you to decide this. > > > sk:...and, it is not up to you. Focus on yourself, not on me. > > > AL: But you are me. :-) > > > sk: That's exactly the reason why I said it! Ok, good. > > > AL: Drop all responsibilities so that you are aware and can act > repsonsible in the present moment. > > > sk: Struntprat...it's all already done, my friend! Can you do > something which hasn't already happened? Yes, when we recognize that it's all already done, then we see that we already are 100% responsible all the time. We are 100% perfect, even when we are a mess. :-) > > > AL: The future is the world of the ego. > > > sk: Yes, your personal future, if you continue typing such callow > nonsense! Hehe. I carefully type these words of wisdom for the benefit to the past. > > > Ramesh Balsekar makes a destinction between the working mind and the > thinking mind. The working mind uses the past in order to do a good > job in the present moment, but it stops at the present moment and > does not project itself into a " future " . The thinking mind creates a > future and gets tense and nervous over its own creation. > > > sk: I agree with Balsekar! > > > AL: Ask yourself: who is in the future? Or, rather, *what* is in the > future, becuase it is clearly not you who are in the future, because > you are now. You will come to the conclusion that the future is > nothing but thoughts created now, and you are _not_ those thoughts. > > > sk: I like your perseveration, what about seriousness? Seriousness go together with a grave sense of pride. It's all ego stuff. And it's all suffering needed until the shell of fear is being shattered. > > > AL: For practical purposes, sure a future is needed, but > responsibility in the future? > > > sk: My dentist always said, prevention and prophylaxis are the most > important things. You are responsible for the state your teeth. I > believed in what he said. He was right and he hasn't earned much > money by treating me, at least, until now! Ha! Yes, brushing one's teeth is a practical purpose. But I am beginning to suspect that even that is bullshit. The entire human body is just an illusion. Now, don't get me wrong. The human body is reality as an experience, but what _creates_ this reality is changeless consciousness. It is indestructible consciousness that is what is real. Our limited consciousness (even though a part of the One Consciousness) can create dreams, we can dream about going to the dentist, and when we wake up, then where is the dentist? Similarly, when we wake up from this world, where is this world? I am not saying that the world is a dream. The world is reality, but it is only a play in consciousness. Nothing can be destroyed in reality. > > > AL: That is mechanical living. That is a fabricated sense of self > steeped in pride believing itself to be God, a fragment with the > insane idea that it is able to alter the course of the Universe by > its own volition. > > > sk: Don't worry! Life is like a cold, it passes by, no matter what > you do.... Do you mean that I am helpless? Shit! " The realization of helplessness, without the *feeling* of helplessness. " -- Vernon Howard Think about it; if you are not doing anything, what a marvelous power is not in action? Everything that happens is you. Why would you need a separate personal " me " then? If you knew that the " me " was a false idea, would you still want to have this " me " ? If you knew that the personal me was just an idea similar to the idea about Santa Claus, would you not be very, very eager to get rid of such a childish notion? Do you want to live as a little " me " all your life, and then die, without knowing anything else? If you knew that all fear was a false illusion, would you then not feel utterly liberated?! " Are you peaceful and relaxed in every situation? Or are you what is commonly known as a nervous wreck? Yes or no. Yes or no. I am a nervous wreck. Yes or no. I you tell the truth, if you are capable of telling the truth... " -- Vernon Howard Think about it: do you feel the slightest anxiety about money? Are you concerned about money? Are you concerned about your health? Are you the slightest concerned about what other people will think or say about you? Then you are a nervous wreck, and you can say 'Yes' to Vernon's question. Then you live in fear. Then you live in a prison. A prison for your mind. A prison we call the ego, the little " me " . /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Hi Anders > " The realization of helplessness, without the *feeling* of > helplessness. " -- Vernon Howard sk: Nice! > Think about it; if you are not doing anything, what a marvelous power > is not in action? Everything that happens is you. Why would you need > a separate personal " me " then? If you knew that the " me " was a false > idea, would you still want to have this " me " ? If you knew that the > personal me was just an idea similar to the idea about Santa Claus, > would you not be very, very eager to get rid of such a childish > notion? Do you want to live as a little " me " all your life, and then > die, without knowing anything else? If you knew that all fear was a > false illusion, would you then not feel utterly liberated?! > > " Are you peaceful and relaxed in every situation? Or are you what is > commonly known as a nervous wreck? Yes or no. Yes or no. I am a > nervous wreck. Yes or no. I you tell the truth, if you are capable of > telling the truth... " -- Vernon Howard sk: Laugh! Very good! > Think about it: do you feel the slightest anxiety about money? Are > you concerned about money? Are you concerned about your health? Are > you the slightest concerned about what other people will think or say > about you? Then you are a nervous wreck, and you can say 'Yes' to > Vernon's question. Then you live in fear. Then you live in a prison. > A prison for your mind. A prison we call the ego, the little " me " . sk: Excellent! regards 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.