Guest guest Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 > > > > > > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. According to the less then marks, this is the 8th generation of the above.....er something like that...So, am not certain that Scott is the one that wrote " *I am* is not a fact " ....but I think he did. What then is *I Am* ? Inquiring minds want to know :-) RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 i agree w/ u there is no " i am " in reality in fact, there is not a thing Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi there, > > Yes, I did write the below. > > > > > > > > > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. > > <According to the less then marks, this is the 8th generation of the > above.....er something like that...So, am not certain that Scott is the one > that wrote " *I am* is not a fact " ....but I think he did.> > > <What then is *I Am* ?> > > 'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of being or awareness. > > <Inquiring minds want to know :-)> > > Inquiring minds can never 'know' > > 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 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 > > >Hi there, > >Yes, I did write the below. > > > > > > > > > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. > ><According to the less then marks, this is the 8th generation of the >above.....er something like that...So, am not certain that Scott is the one >that wrote " *I am* is not a fact " ....but I think he did.> > ><What then is *I Am* ?> > >'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of being >or awareness. > ><Inquiring minds want to know :-)> > >Inquiring minds can never 'know' > >Kind Regards, > >Scott. Thanks, Scott....OK, if something is true then, you do not consider it also a fact, I take it. Facts then are intellectual data only? irrespective of their Truth? :-) RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Hello again. ><What then is *I Am* ?> > >'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of being >or awareness. > ><Inquiring minds want to know :-)> > >Inquiring minds can never 'know' > >Kind Regards, > >Scott. <Thanks, Scott....OK, if something is true then, you do not consider it also a fact, I take it.> Truth, or A truth is a definable consistency between the 'subjective self' and the 'objective world it sees', truth is the defining of this consistency. In order for truth to exist there *must* be an 'I' and a 'that'. Facts can be true or false, they are 'bits of quantity, of knowledge or information'. <Facts then are intellectual data only?> Yes, within a thinking mind, quantifiable knowledge, that can be true or false. <irrespective of their Truth? :-)> Yes, facts can be true or false. 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 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Hello, <i agree w/ u there is no " i am " in reality> 'I am' is a thought signpost / assertion, a thought that comes out of a thinking ME that rises from the ocean. The most *apt* thought straight from beingness. 'I am' is what God would say *if he could* There is an 'I am' just as much as there IS trees, clouds, curtains rings, taxes, can openers and bridges. <in fact, there is not a thing> Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling into nihilism. Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it just isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING. I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality of everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of existence but not an absolute one Kind Regards, Scott. Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi there, > > Yes, I did write the below. > > > > > > > > > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. > > <According to the less then marks, this is the 8th generation of the > above.....er something like that...So, am not certain that Scott is the one > that wrote " *I am* is not a fact " ....but I think he did.> > > <What then is *I Am* ?> > > 'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of being or awareness. > > <Inquiring minds want to know :-)> > > Inquiring minds can never 'know' > > 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 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 >Bless your heart, Scott :-) You are positively brilliant!!!!!! I learned >not too long ago of my intellectual limitations :-)(what a bloody ego >bashing that was :-) Now I doff my chapeau at those like yourself, >rather then run myself into the ground trying to keep pace :-) Thank you for your " enlightenment " :-) RL, FPI >Hello again. > > > ><What then is *I Am* ?> > > > >'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of being > >or awareness. > > > ><Inquiring minds want to know :-)> > > > >Inquiring minds can never 'know' > > > >Kind Regards, > > > >Scott. > > ><Thanks, Scott....OK, if something is true then, you do not consider it also >a fact, I take it.> > >Truth, or A truth is a definable consistency between the 'subjective self' >and the 'objective world it sees', truth is the defining of this consistency. > >In order for truth to exist there *must* be an 'I' and a 'that'. > >Facts can be true or false, they are 'bits of quantity, of knowledge or >information'. > ><Facts then are intellectual data only?> > >Yes, within a thinking mind, quantifiable knowledge, that can be true or >false. > ><irrespective of >their Truth? :-)> > > >Yes, facts can be true or false. > >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 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 >Scott writes: > >Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling into >nihilism. > >Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it just >isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING. > >I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality of >everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of existence but >not an absolute one > >Kind Regards, > >Scott. hm.....doesn't the statement " Nothing IS " ...........automatically negate a nihilistic interpretation?:-) Can I get a point for that?...........rofl RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi there, > > Yes, I did write the below. Well, then, you probably wrote the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Hi again, >Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling into >nihilism. > >Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it just >isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING. > >I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality of >everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of existence but >not an absolute one <hm.....doesn't the statement " Nothing IS " ...........automatically negate a nihilistic interpretation?:-)> No, taken alone, it would point to a nihilistic interpretation. It must be qualified, as in *nothing IS, in *itself* real, there has never been anything *of itself* real. EveryTHING is an appearance and disappearance, and nothing arises by itself, it all arises as one. 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 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Hi again, >Bless your heart, Scott :-) You are positively brilliant!!!!!! I learned >not too long ago of my intellectual limitations :-)(what a bloody ego >bashing that was :-)> Intellectualizing can help immensely, so long as it is completely thrown away later. <Now I doff my chapeau at those like yourself, >rather then run myself into the ground trying to keep pace :-)> It is not a matter of keeping pace, because this is not something you can think about in any way that is accurate, but thinking about it does point. Any question about knowledge and facts will bring an answer related to the same. Kind Regards, Scott. > ><What then is *I Am* ?> > > > >'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of being > >or awareness. > > > ><Inquiring minds want to know :-)> > > > >Inquiring minds can never 'know' > > > >Kind Regards, > > > >Scott. > > ><Thanks, Scott....OK, if something is true then, you do not consider it also >a fact, I take it.> > >Truth, or A truth is a definable consistency between the 'subjective self' >and the 'objective world it sees', truth is the defining of this consistency. > >In order for truth to exist there *must* be an 'I' and a 'that'. > >Facts can be true or false, they are 'bits of quantity, of knowledge or >information'. > ><Facts then are intellectual data only?> > >Yes, within a thinking mind, quantifiable knowledge, that can be true or >false. > ><irrespective of >their Truth? :-)> > > >Yes, facts can be true or false. > >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 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 > >Hi again, > > >Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling into > >nihilism. > > > >Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it just > >isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING. > > > >I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality of > >everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of existence but > >not an absolute one > > ><hm.....doesn't the statement " Nothing IS " ...........automatically negate a >nihilistic interpretation?:-)> > >No, taken alone, it would point to a nihilistic interpretation. > >It must be qualified, as in *nothing IS, in *itself* real, there has never >been anything *of itself* real. > >EveryTHING is an appearance and disappearance, and nothing arises by >itself, it all arises as one. > >Kind Regards, > >Scott. Dear Scott...you missed the point perhaps... if " nothing " (which is nothing) " IS " (implying something existing, i.e., ISness (whatever that is:-) it not only gives me a headache to think about (that Nothing Exists,,,IS and IS NOT simultaneously) then at best case scenario....the Isness negates the Nothing....which I interpret as Not Nihilistic :-)...gee...I actually can think but must admit it is painful :-) RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Hi again, Dear Scott...you missed the point perhaps... if " nothing " (which is nothing) " IS " (implying something existing, i.e., ISness (whatever that is:-) it not only gives me a headache to think about (that Nothing Exists,,,IS and IS NOT simultaneously) then at best case scenario....the Isness negates the Nothing....which I interpret as Not Nihilistic :-)...gee...I actually can think but must admit it is painful :-)> Ok, yes I see what you mean and you are right in saying .... IS negates nihilism. What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is real. Kind Regards, Scott. RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 > > >Hi again, > >Dear Scott...you missed the point perhaps... if " nothing " (which is >nothing) " IS " (implying something existing, i.e., ISness (whatever that >is:-) it not only gives me a headache to think about (that Nothing >Exists,,,IS and IS NOT simultaneously) then at best case scenario....the >Isness negates the Nothing....which I interpret as Not Nihilistic >:-)...gee...I actually can think but must admit it is painful :-)> > >Ok, yes I see what you mean and you are right in saying .... IS negates >nihilism. > >What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is real. > >Kind Regards, > >Scott. Puzzactly, Scott :-)....goes without saying (obviously NOT) that nothing IS in itself real :-).........rofl.......I need an aspirin or a drink .....signing off thinking for the day :-) RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 the ME or " i am " doesn't rise out of the ocean... the actual " i am " is beyond description... it has no qualities whatsoever... it is neither born nor does it die... timeless... it is incontrovertible " I AM THAT I AM " (exodus 3:14) everything has a relative aspect but it also has an absolute aspect, too... this can be seen when u see that nothing u see is u... hence, all relativity breaks down in the absolute realization of yourself... u r absolute... everything is relative to u... in u, all things merge with the absolute... yours, too danananda Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hello, > > <i agree w/ u > > there is no " i am " in reality> > > 'I am' is a thought signpost / assertion, a thought that comes out of a thinking ME that rises from the ocean. > > The most *apt* thought straight from beingness. > > 'I am' is what God would say *if he could* > > There is an 'I am' just as much as there IS trees, clouds, curtains rings, taxes, can openers and bridges. > > > > <in fact, there is not a thing> > > Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling into nihilism. > > Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it just isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING. > > I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality of everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of existence but not an absolute one > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Hi again, <the ME or " i am " doesn't rise out of the ocean... the actual " i am " is beyond description...> ME does not = 'I am' There is no 'actual', seeming or real 'I AM' There is truly no I AM, it is the first descriptive thought of mentation from 'out of' THAT. Or, there IS an 'I AM' *just as much* as there IS anyTHING or anyTHOUGHT ELSE. 'I am' is a thought description 'out of' that ocean, but it cannot ARISE without a ME or reflected self to say it or think it. 'I AM' is what GOD would say *IF HE COULD*, it is still a phenomenal projection. <it has no qualities whatsoever... it is neither born nor does it die... timeless... it is incontrovertible> ''''''IT''''''', the nameless THAT, that WE are talking about...... " I AM THAT I AM " (exodus 3:14) <everything has a relative aspect but it also has an absolute aspect, too... this can be seen when u see that nothing u see is u...> Yes, EveryTHING is relatively real. <hence, all relativity breaks down in the absolute realization of yourself... u r absolute... everything is relative to u... in u, all things merge with the absolute... > And, there is no 'you' and 'me'. Kind Regards, Scott. yours, too danananda Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hello, > > <i agree w/ u > > there is no " i am " in reality> > > 'I am' is a thought signpost / assertion, a thought that comes out of a thinking ME that rises from the ocean. > > The most *apt* thought straight from beingness. > > 'I am' is what God would say *if he could* > > There is an 'I am' just as much as there IS trees, clouds, curtains rings, taxes, can openers and bridges. > > > > <in fact, there is not a thing> > > Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling into nihilism. > > Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it just isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING. > > I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality of everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of existence but not an absolute one > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 > What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is real. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > Scott, what does that mean precisely? And what good is it to us to say that or realize it? I have a tough time with the whole vedanta notion that the world comes into being when we wake up in the morning. When I say that a table is real, it is because that concept is useful in the sense that I can then " really " put my coffee cup on it, and will hurt my knee if I bump into it. What more than that would realizing that its " not real in itself " do for me? I can get a glimmer of the idea that " consciousness " is creating all this, but why does that make it any less " real in itself " than if " God " or the " Great Spirit " created it? I'm not intending to dispute your statement, but its the sort of thing I can't quite grasp and wonder if you could amplify. Sven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 > > > What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is >real. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > > > >Scott, what does that mean precisely? And what good is it to us to >say that or realize it? I have a tough time with the whole vedanta >notion that the world comes into being when we wake up in the morning. > >When I say that a table is real, it is because that concept is useful >in the sense that I can then " really " put my coffee cup on it, and >will hurt my knee if I bump into it. What more than that would >realizing that its " not real in itself " do for me? > >I can get a glimmer of the idea that " consciousness " is creating all >this, but why does that make it any less " real in itself " than >if " God " or the " Great Spirit " created it? > >I'm not intending to dispute your statement, but its the sort of >thing I can't quite grasp and wonder if you could amplify. > >Sven am definitely not Scott nor do I presume to be.....but I might have an answer...Not sure that vendanta says the world comes into being when you wake up.....my understanding is that we really can't prove that that is NOT the case (sort of like proving or disproving the existence of God). Am assuming Scott is saying that everything we see/feel/touch/taste/etc. IS real in the manifest world (what we see) but my understanding is that none of it exists independently arising on its own...independent of God/Totality/Consciousness, etc......it's sort of the vendanta twist on the Buddhist suttra (Heart?) form is emptiness/emptiness is form notion (which gave me many headaches...needlessly...it's not that complicated) A dzogchen monk said much the same thing but in his thick Tibetan accent added " But watch the hole in path...tho no exist, can still break leg if trip in it " :-) RL, FPI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Hi Sven, > What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is real.> <Scott, what does that mean precisely?> It means that nothing in the entire manifestation has any inherently real existence, everything owes it existence to everything else as a dependence of relationships. It all arises as one and never a thing in itself. Anything physical is not fundamentally real, in the physical world the continuum of mind / consciousness creates and uncreates, things arise and disappear, all ghosts upon the screen, and this also includes 'us', 'you' and 'me' also; apparitions of appearance. The nature of the phenomenon of the world is of the same essential fluxing nature as thoughts in a mind and it has no more real or credible steadfastness than thoughts occurring in a mind. Everything passes through fluxing change within 'universal mind', there is nothing you can hold onto with a sense of sureness and true ownership is impossible. How did I hope to grab onto to a piece of the universe and say 'this is mine'! We do not own anything, nobody owns anything, the only owner owns through *identity*. There are a wonderful few lines from the Diamond Sutra which point out this fundamental way of the world; Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream; A flash of lightning in a summer cloud, A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream. <And what good is it to us to say that or realize it?> This is a very good question. Firstly, let me say that this is a question that only you can truly answer properly for *yourself*, and it is a question that only you *should* answer for yourself without relying upon the views of others. That is not to say that you shouldn't consider anothers view, but that ultimately you should form your own opinion in regard to this. The 'good' that you will realize or the good that comes from this is a very personal thing and it probably depends much on how you see things now and your own personal spiritual practice and belief. For your consideration, I will say that it allows you to put your viewpoint of life into a more realistic and *correct* perspective, allows you to act with more wisdom than would be possible not knowing this, allows you to see things how they really are without being under the common illusion, inspires you to seek what is really important and to avoid wasting time on those things not important, turns the mind away from material interests to those of spiritual practice or philosophical inquiry which in turn leads to the investigation of self knowledge. >I have a tough time with the whole vedanta notion that the world comes into being when we wake up in the morning.When I say that a table is real, it is because that concept is useful in the sense that I can then " really " put my coffee cup on it, and will hurt my knee if I bump into it. What more than that would realizing that its " not real in itself " do for me?> Don't take things too literally! A lot of the Indian material is clinically very sterile and it won't make sense to just read it and think *that is the way things are* because they never qualify statements with anything else. It is *never* that cut and dry. <I can get a glimmer of the idea that " consciousness " is creating all this, but why does that make it any less " real in itself " than if " God " or the " Great Spirit " created it? > The whole world IS consciousness or mind and it is VERY real, but nothing as a single thing like a coffee cup is REAL IN ITSELF, it's a ghost, a vanishing as much as it is an appearance. What you call 'God' or anything else 'divine' is simply your projection of reality onto itself. 'God' is minds highest conception *of itself*. But Gods do exist, we create them, and within the spectrum of consciousness that IS the world there are many different flavours of consciousness, some are called 'Gods'. <I'm not intending to dispute your statement, but its the sort of thing I can't quite grasp and wonder if you could amplify.> Hope the above helps. 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 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , " svenchadodi " <svenchadodi> wrote: > > What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is > real. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > > > > Scott, what does that mean precisely? And what good is it to us to > say that or realize it? I have a tough time with the whole vedanta > notion that the world comes into being when we wake up in the morning. Ha! Wrong. Waking up in the morning is just a memory in the present moment. The world does not come into being when we wake up, the world comes into being NOW. It takes zero seconds for the entire world to be created. There never has been any past. The past is just an illusion of a history track created IN THIS VERY MOMENT. :-) > > When I say that a table is real, it is because that concept is useful > in the sense that I can then " really " put my coffee cup on it, and > will hurt my knee if I bump into it. What more than that would > realizing that its " not real in itself " do for me? See the ENTIRE world including your body and mind as something being not you. See the world as a projection in pure consciousness. You yourself are always pure untouchable. You are the Source that creates _everything_. > > I can get a glimmer of the idea that " consciousness " is creating all > this, but why does that make it any less " real in itself " than > if " God " or the " Great Spirit " created it? > > I'm not intending to dispute your statement, but its the sort of > thing I can't quite grasp and wonder if you could amplify. > > Sven The world is not real because there is no life in the world. Your body is only a dead history track being created now, a _very_ " recent " memory track, but still only a dead past. What is alive is awareness. You feel your body as being alive, but when you watch TV, is a person on the TV screen alive? It is exactly the same thing with everything in the material world. Everything in it is already dead. I don't mean dead in a negative sense, but dead as being just a 3D projection. What do you do with the most advanced and intelligent 3D projection there is? You enjoy it! That is the meaning of life which is pure awareness. The meaning of life is to enjoy the projection/creation to the maximum. You yourself may be deathless or not, but let me assure you, you are not anything in this world, not your body, not your thoughts. You are the _experiencer_ of it. /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, > Ha! Wrong. Waking up in the morning is just a memory in the present > moment. The world does not come into being when we wake up, the world > comes into being NOW. >It takes zero seconds for the entire world to > be created. There never has been any past.> The behaviour of the phenomenon IS time, so it takes no time IT IS TIME itself. >The past is just an > illusion of a history track created IN THIS VERY MOMENT. :-) A track in NOW, objects appear and disappear and 'create time' in the middle ( by the behaviour of the phenomenon ( or mind )) > See the ENTIRE world including your body and mind as something being > not you. See the world as a projection in pure consciousness. You > yourself are always pure untouchable. You are the Source that creates > _everything_. There is no projection, the world *is* MIND. > The world is not real because there is no life in the world.> There is no square inch of the world that *isn't* alive, it is all very much ALIVE. <Your > body is only a dead history track being created now, a > _very_ " recent " memory track, but still only a dead past. What is > alive is awareness.> The body, ( and everything else ), 'passes through' the same NOW as moving phenomenon. The potential for things to happen and occurr is 'only' the potential for movement in space, which IS amongst whatever else we want to label it, time. > > You feel your body as being alive, but when you watch TV, is a person > on the TV screen alive? It is exactly the same thing with everything > in the material world. Everything in it is already dead. I don't mean > dead in a negative sense, but dead as being just a 3D projection. It is all alive. > What do you do with the most advanced and intelligent 3D projection > there is? You enjoy it!> Who enjoys? There must BE a ME to enjoy *this* and any enjoyment is being enjoyed *through* a ME or reflected self. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water >That is the meaning of life which is pure > awareness. The meaning of life is to enjoy the projection/creation to > the maximum.> The 'meaning of life' and there is not a ONE to speak of, is the unique personal subjectification of a reflected self, ( self under reflection of itself ), unique and exclusive to every reflected self. The total doesn't *need* a purpose, it IS, purpose is created and projected by reflected selves. But every subjectification of purpose or *anything* is also part of what makes the whole what IT IS ( 'moment by moment ' ). Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Ramesh Belsaker uses the metaphor of a bracelet that cannot be seperated from the gold it was made from. It has no independent existence. cheers Eric Nisargadatta , " svenchadodi " <svenchadodi> wrote: > > What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is > real. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > > > > Scott, what does that mean precisely? And what good is it to us to > say that or realize it? I have a tough time with the whole vedanta > notion that the world comes into being when we wake up in the morning. > > When I say that a table is real, it is because that concept is useful > in the sense that I can then " really " put my coffee cup on it, and > will hurt my knee if I bump into it. What more than that would > realizing that its " not real in itself " do for me? > > I can get a glimmer of the idea that " consciousness " is creating all > this, but why does that make it any less " real in itself " than > if " God " or the " Great Spirit " created it? > > I'm not intending to dispute your statement, but its the sort of > thing I can't quite grasp and wonder if you could amplify. > > Sven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Ha! Wrong. Waking up in the morning is just a memory in the present > > moment. The world does not come into being when we wake up, the > world > > comes into being NOW. > > >It takes zero seconds for the entire world to > > be created. There never has been any past.> > > > The behaviour of the phenomenon IS time, so it takes no time IT IS > TIME itself. > > > >The past is just an > > illusion of a history track created IN THIS VERY MOMENT. :-) > > > A track in NOW, objects appear and disappear and 'create time' in the > middle ( by the behaviour of the phenomenon ( or mind )) > > > > > See the ENTIRE world including your body and mind as something > being > > not you. See the world as a projection in pure consciousness. You > > yourself are always pure untouchable. You are the Source that > creates > > _everything_. > > > There is no projection, the world *is* MIND. > > > > The world is not real because there is no life in the world.> > > > There is no square inch of the world that *isn't* alive, it is all > very much ALIVE. > > > <Your > > body is only a dead history track being created now, a > > _very_ " recent " memory track, but still only a dead past. What is > > alive is awareness.> > > > The body, ( and everything else ), 'passes through' the same NOW as > moving phenomenon. The potential for things to happen and occurr > is 'only' the potential for movement in space, which IS amongst > whatever else we want to label it, time. > > > > > > You feel your body as being alive, but when you watch TV, is a > person > > on the TV screen alive? It is exactly the same thing with > everything > > in the material world. Everything in it is already dead. I don't > mean > > dead in a negative sense, but dead as being just a 3D projection. > > > It is all alive. > > > > > What do you do with the most advanced and intelligent 3D projection > > there is? You enjoy it!> > > > Who enjoys? > There must BE a ME to enjoy *this* and any enjoyment is being enjoyed > *through* a ME or reflected self. > > Don't throw the baby out with the bath water > > > > >That is the meaning of life which is pure > > awareness. The meaning of life is to enjoy the projection/creation > to > > the maximum.> > > > The 'meaning of life' and there is not a ONE to speak of, is the > unique personal subjectification of a reflected self, ( self under > reflection of itself ), unique and exclusive to every reflected self. > > The total doesn't *need* a purpose, it IS, purpose is created and > projected by reflected selves. But every subjectification of purpose > or *anything* is also part of what makes the whole what IT IS > ( 'moment by moment ' ). > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. If everything is alive, what then is the difference between a dead person and a person alive today? ;-) /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 again, > If everything is alive, what then is the difference between a dead > person and a person alive today? ;-) One has a physical body and the other doesn't. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > If everything is alive, what then is the difference between a dead > > person and a person alive today? ;-) > > > One has a physical body and the other doesn't. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. No one has a physical body. All material " things " are in reality No- things. All things are empty in themselves. If you think something of form has any reality, then show me the number 2. Have you seen the number two anywhere in reality? Consciousness is like an immovable screen and a film projector, the material world like the images on the screen. We may look at a movie and see a person in it. That person is not a separate entity. Similarly, the human body is not a separate entity. No one " has " a body. The body is just an appearance in consciousness. The world is Maya. /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 again, > > > If everything is alive, what then is the difference between a > dead > > > person and a person alive today? ;-) > > > > > > One has a physical body and the other doesn't. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > No one has a physical body.> Every*one* ( human etc ) has a physical body. No *who* owns a physical body. Man is made up of many bodies of expression which allow consciousness to act. And this is a necessary part of what makes all this, ALL THIS. It does no good to deny this interaction of the personal self with the world, this interaction is what makes what IS, WHAT IS. Denying this is missing one half of one whole truth. <All material " things " are in reality No- > things. All things are empty in themselves.> All things are not real in themselves, temporary arisings, yes. >If you think something of > form has any reality, then show me the number 2.> Hold up both arms. >Have you seen the > number two anywhere in reality? See above. > Consciousness is like an immovable screen and a film projector, the > material world like the images on the screen. We may look at a movie > and see a person in it.> A metaphor of consciousness is like the above, but consciousness itself is nothing like this or anything else, there is no screen and no projector. Every reflected self contributes in making 'that movie' what it is. > That person is not a separate entity.> AS a separate entity they ARE a separate entity. Nothing exists IN separation there is a subtle but important difference. Chuang Tzu said a very wise thing a long time ago which says this beautifully; 'The BEING of SEPARATE beings is non separate BEING' This is different from saying that the person is not a separate entity. > Similarly, the human body is not a separate entity. No one " has " a > body.> The human body is a separate entity, it is just not *owned* by a who. >The body is just an appearance in consciousness. The world is > Maya.> EveryTHING IS mind / consciousness not an appearance IN it. Kind Regards, Scott. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.