Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Hi again, > The ego is the idea that something else than you exists.> The ego is the *false idea* of what '''you''' are. The ME that believes itself to be a ME is what binds a ME to a ME as A body/mind. > Don't go too deep meditating on this if you want to hold your ideas > about the world intact. Do you *really* want to be a Sage if this > means that you will find yourself being the only one there is?> In meditation WHO meditates 'you' or 'God'? *Any concern of fear of the loss of a ME is being experienced and felt BY a ME; A ME fears losing a ME* > That would be a big joke, wouldn't it? You think you say things to > people and people respond, but in reality there is no one else than > you there.> Who would laugh about losing themselves, WHO would be left to laugh? This is not about *losing* identity, it is about FINDING TRUE identity and realizing the false or mistaken identity, there is no loss other than false identification. > > There is a saying: " Those who speak does not know, and those who know > does not speak. " > > Hmm... Why would those who know not speak? Why would they be so > inconsiderate? One would think that a person who knows would be very > eager to share this knowledge. Unless...> Maybe they don't speak because there is no *need*. > " There is no one to be enlightened. " > Yes. ( A qualified yes ) There is no-one, no WHO that *can* be enlightened, and thus there is no 'enlightenment'. No-one AS a WHO ever has ever been enlightened and no-ONE as a WHO ever will be. Kind Regards, Scott. > > Ooops! :-) > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > The ego is the idea that something else than you exists.> > > > The ego is the *false idea* of what '''you''' are. > > The ME that believes itself to be a ME is what binds a ME to a ME as > A body/mind. > > > > > Don't go too deep meditating on this if you want to hold your ideas > > about the world intact. Do you *really* want to be a Sage if this > > means that you will find yourself being the only one there is?> > > > In meditation WHO meditates 'you' or 'God'? > > *Any concern of fear of the loss of a ME is being experienced and > felt BY a ME; A ME fears losing a ME* The ME is only a temporary idea. Don't bother so much with it. > > > > > That would be a big joke, wouldn't it? You think you say things to > > people and people respond, but in reality there is no one else than > > you there.> > > > Who would laugh about losing themselves, WHO would be left to laugh? > > This is not about *losing* identity, it is about FINDING TRUE > identity and realizing the false or mistaken identity, there is no > loss other than false identification. And out of the window goes all personal pride. > > > > > > There is a saying: " Those who speak does not know, and those who > know > > does not speak. " > > > > Hmm... Why would those who know not speak? Why would they be so > > inconsiderate? One would think that a person who knows would be > very > > eager to share this knowledge. Unless...> > > > > Maybe they don't speak because there is no *need*. Exactly. That is I think a very good statement. If everything happens by the Will of God, then who the heck would need to do anything to " save the world " . Utterly ridiculous. How do you save a past that IS ALREADY GONE once you become aware of it!!!!! Hahahaha. ;-) Let's see: " Maybe I can do this or that in order to help him or her. " Nope, sorry, you cannot help the past, the past is already GONE, and you can only see and experience the past. Compassion may arise in you, let it arise, it is not you doing anything anyway. Help people, be nice, kind and loving, but know that you are not the one doing anything. Enjoy the kindness rising out of your own heart. See your pride for what it is: an illusion. Pride taken seriously is hidden fear, nothing else. > > > > > " There is no one to be enlightened. " > > > > > Yes. ( A qualified yes ) > > There is no-one, no WHO that *can* be enlightened, and thus there is > no 'enlightenment'. > > No-one AS a WHO ever has ever been enlightened and no-ONE as a WHO > ever will be. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > > > > Ooops! :-) > > > > /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 again, > > In meditation WHO meditates 'you' or 'God'? > > > > *Any concern of fear of the loss of a ME is being experienced and > > felt BY a ME; A ME fears losing a ME* > > The ME is only a temporary idea. Don't bother so much with it.>> A ME wrote the above sentence *It does no good to deny the personal self* from a real position OR a philosophical one, because it is a me asserting both. It takes a ME. > > > That would be a big joke, wouldn't it? You think you say things > to > > > people and people respond, but in reality there is no one else > than > > > you there.> > > > > > > Who would laugh about losing themselves, WHO would be left to laugh? > > > > This is not about *losing* identity, it is about FINDING TRUE > > identity and realizing the false or mistaken identity, there is no > > loss other than false identification. > > And out of the window goes all personal pride. No-one *vanishes* And all the *inherentness* of a personal self is *still there* including the good, the bad and ugly. Because of ones spiritual practice some character traits may be purified or refined but this could occurr in any person so desiring of striving for the same perfection of character with no interest in spiritual practice or 'getting enlightened'. > > > There is a saying: " Those who speak does not know, and those who > > know > > > does not speak. " > > > > > > Hmm... Why would those who know not speak? Why would they be so > > > inconsiderate? One would think that a person who knows would be > > very > > > eager to share this knowledge. Unless...> > > > > > > > > Maybe they don't speak because there is no *need*. >>>>>> Exactly. That is I think a very good statement. If everything happens > by the Will of God, then who the heck would need to do anything > to " save the world " >>>>>>>> What is God? Does he have a will? What is the world? WHY is the world the way it IS? >Utterly ridiculous. How do you save a past that > IS ALREADY GONE once you become aware of it!!!!! Hahahaha. ;-)>>> It is happening NOW, it has always happened now. > Let's see: " Maybe I can do this or that in order to help him or her. " > Nope, sorry, you cannot help the past, the past is already GONE, and > you can only see and experience the past.>>>>> You are experiencing NOW and can act from that now. >>>>>Compassion may arise in > you, let it arise, it is not you doing anything anyway. Help people, > be nice, kind and loving, but know that you are not the one doing > anything.>>>>>> The benefit or worth of the development of the heart is something that one must find out for themselves. What is love, what is forgiveness, why love, why forgive, what is kindness, why practice loving kindness, why not be angry and hate? Why one can experience these emotions and under what circumstances, what affects they have on ones self and upon others is all up to our own very personal life exploration and experience of lifes learning. >>>>Enjoy the kindness rising out of your own heart. See your > pride for what it is: an illusion. Pride taken seriously is hidden > fear, nothing else.>>>>>>> Again, this is a unique personal exploration. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > In meditation WHO meditates 'you' or 'God'? > > > > > > *Any concern of fear of the loss of a ME is being experienced and > > > felt BY a ME; A ME fears losing a ME* > > > > The ME is only a temporary idea. Don't bother so much with it.>> > > > > A ME wrote the above sentence > > *It does no good to deny the personal self* from a real position OR a > philosophical one, because it is a me asserting both. > > It takes a ME. Yes, I must admit that there is a " me " writing this, but I have a suspicion that this " me " is a functioning of Totality rather than a " me " doing anything. > > > > > > That would be a big joke, wouldn't it? You think you say things > > to > > > > people and people respond, but in reality there is no one else > > than > > > > you there.> > > > > > > > > > Who would laugh about losing themselves, WHO would be left to > laugh? > > > > > > This is not about *losing* identity, it is about FINDING TRUE > > > identity and realizing the false or mistaken identity, there is > no > > > loss other than false identification. > > > > And out of the window goes all personal pride. > > > No-one *vanishes* > > And all the *inherentness* of a personal self is *still there* > including the good, the bad and ugly. > > Because of ones spiritual practice some character traits may be > purified or refined but this could occurr in any person so desiring > of striving for the same perfection of character with no interest in > spiritual practice or 'getting enlightened'. Those who claim to be " enlightened " say that the " me " has been obliterated in them. This may be because of a brain damage rather than a true spiritual Realization :-), but I suspect that the truth is that the " me " is an illusion and that it is not needed. > > > > > > > There is a saying: " Those who speak does not know, and those > who > > > know > > > > does not speak. " > > > > > > > > Hmm... Why would those who know not speak? Why would they be so > > > > inconsiderate? One would think that a person who knows would be > > > very > > > > eager to share this knowledge. Unless...> > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe they don't speak because there is no *need*. > > >>>>>> Exactly. That is I think a very good statement. If everything > happens > > by the Will of God, then who the heck would need to do anything > > to " save the world " >>>>>>>> > > > What is God? > Does he have a will? > What is the world? > WHY is the world the way it IS? Simple qustions: :-) God is everything there is. God does not have a will. God *is* The Will. The world is Maya, or the Timeless Matrix, God is the Timeless Matix together with the _experience_ of the Timeless Matrix. Think of the Matrix as one absolute existence that is immovable, indestructible and unchangeable. The Matrix is timelessly self-aware. The world is an observation point inside this Matrix, and as a point the world is litterary nothing. Awareness observing this point makes the world appear, and each observation point lead to another observation point, not as a result of some action, but as a fact of what already timelessly is. This creates the appearance of time. The world is as it is because it cannot be otherwise. There is no entity changing, creating, altering or in any way able to change what timelessly is. God's Will is not a result of some being doing anything, but rather the result of observation points being experienced inside the changeless Matrix. The last observation point lies in an infinite future. We are heading towards that future all the time but we will never reach it. So time will go on endlessly. The final point has already been reached by infinite intelligence and love. And do you know what has reached it? It is awareness itself that is this final timeless point in the Matrix and now it is experiencing the rest of the Matrix in all its splendour. Observation begins in a state of total " separation " and then moves up into integration in the form of evolution. Humanity is the first step of awareness really being able to experience itself as beings. But this first step is painful because it is the transition zone between separation and wholeness. How's that for a speculation? maybe I should write a sci-fi novel based on this? :-) > > > > >Utterly ridiculous. How do you save a past that > > IS ALREADY GONE once you become aware of it!!!!! Hahahaha. ;-)>>> > > > It is happening NOW, it has always happened now. Yes, timelessly so. See the Timeless Matrix above. > > > > > Let's see: " Maybe I can do this or that in order to help him or > her. " > > Nope, sorry, you cannot help the past, the past is already GONE, > and > > you can only see and experience the past.>>>>> > > > You are experiencing NOW and can act from that now. No, the experience of time moving is an automatic process. It is all happening with infinite precision. If you really could do something by using the intellect, this world would explode into tiny pieces, because you must synchronize every " particle " in the Universe in order to change it, and the human intellect is utterly incapable of doing something like that. This world is an infinite complex quantum state evolving (experienced observation points). It is not possible to mess with just a tiny part of it and forget the rest of the Universe. > > > >>>>>Compassion may arise in > > you, let it arise, it is not you doing anything anyway. Help > people, > > be nice, kind and loving, but know that you are not the one doing > > anything.>>>>>> > > > The benefit or worth of the development of the heart is something > that one must find out for themselves. > > What is love, what is forgiveness, why love, why forgive, what is > kindness, why practice loving kindness, why not be angry and hate? > > Why one can experience these emotions and under what circumstances, > what affects they have on ones self and upon others is all up to our > own very personal life exploration and experience of lifes learning. I want to experience the world being projected out of my own heart as an effortless act of pure joy! :-) > > > > >>>>Enjoy the kindness rising out of your own heart. See your > > pride for what it is: an illusion. Pride taken seriously is hidden > > fear, nothing else.>>>>>>> > > > Again, this is a unique personal exploration. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Hi again, > > > The ME is only a temporary idea. Don't bother so much with it.>> > > > > > > > > A ME wrote the above sentence > > > > *It does no good to deny the personal self* from a real position OR > a > > philosophical one, because it is a me asserting both. > > > > It takes a ME. > > Yes, I must admit that there is a " me " writing this, but I have a > suspicion that this " me " is a functioning of Totality rather than > a " me " doing anything. It is a ME that is having a suspicion also, and the me might as well not have the suspicion it makes no difference. > > No-one *vanishes* > > > > And all the *inherentness* of a personal self is *still there* > > including the good, the bad and ugly. > > > > Because of ones spiritual practice some character traits may be > > purified or refined but this could occurr in any person so desiring > > of striving for the same perfection of character with no interest > in > > spiritual practice or 'getting enlightened'. >>>>>>>> Those who claim to be " enlightened " say that the " me " has been > obliterated in them.>>>>>>>> A person claiming enlightenment is like a lightbulb claiming to be electricity. God owns the person not the other way around. The 'me' is still there, it is just not what 'they' really are. > This may be because of a brain damage rather than a true spiritual > Realization :-), Maybe >>>>but I suspect that the truth is that the " me " is an > illusion and that it is not needed>>>> No, the me is absolutely needed, and cannot be got rid of! It is just not really real > > What is God? > > Does he have a will? > > What is the world? > > WHY is the world the way it IS? > > Simple qustions: :-) > > God is everything there is. And everything that isn't. > God does not have a will. God *is* The Will.>>>>> Functioning AS will in personal selves. >>>> The world is Maya, or the Timeless Matrix, God is the Timeless Matix > together with the _experience_ of the Timeless Matrix.>>>>>> Think of the > Matrix as one absolute existence that is immovable, indestructible > and unchangeable. The Matrix is timelessly self-aware. The world is > an observation point inside this Matrix, and as a point the world is > litterary nothing. Awareness observing this point makes the world > appear, and each observation point lead to another observation point, > not as a result of some action, but as a fact of what already > timelessly is. This creates the appearance of time. > > The world is as it is because it cannot be otherwise. There is no > entity changing, creating, altering or in any way able to change what > timelessly is. God's Will is not a result of some being doing > anything, but rather the result of observation points being > experienced inside the changeless Matrix. The last observation point > lies in an infinite future. We are heading towards that future all > the time but we will never reach it. So time will go on endlessly. > The final point has already been reached by infinite intelligence and > love. And do you know what has reached it? It is awareness itself > that is this final timeless point in the Matrix and now it is > experiencing the rest of the Matrix in all its splendour. Observation > begins in a state of total " separation " and then moves up into > integration in the form of evolution. Humanity is the first step of > awareness really being able to experience itself as beings. But this > first step is painful because it is the transition zone between > separation and wholeness. > > How's that for a speculation? maybe I should write a sci-fi novel > based on this? :-) Maybe you should! > > > Let's see: " Maybe I can do this or that in order to help him or > > her. " > > > Nope, sorry, you cannot help the past, the past is already GONE, > > and > > > you can only see and experience the past.>>>>> > > > > > > You are experiencing NOW and can act from that now. > > No, the experience of time moving is an automatic process.>>>>> Time does not move and does not *cause* anything. There is only now which time and things 'pass through' >It is all > happening with infinite precision.>>>>>> All inter-related yes. >>>>>>If you really could do something > by using the intellect, this world would explode into tiny pieces, > because you must synchronize every " particle " in the Universe in > order to change it, and the human intellect is utterly incapable of > doing something like that.>>>>> You can do many things with the intellect. We have the amount of intellect specifically suited to us as the evolutionary beings we are. Mind acts on itself. >This world is an infinite complex quantum > state evolving (experienced observation points).> God looks at himself. >It is not possible > to mess with just a tiny part of it and forget the rest of the > Universe.>>> Or, it is not possible to change one part without affecting another. Singular causation and effect doesn't exist. > > The benefit or worth of the development of the heart is something > > that one must find out for themselves. > > > > What is love, what is forgiveness, why love, why forgive, what is > > kindness, why practice loving kindness, why not be angry and hate? > > > > Why one can experience these emotions and under what circumstances, > > what affects they have on ones self and upon others is all up to > our > > own very personal life exploration and experience of lifes learning. > > I want to experience the world being projected out of my own heart as > an effortless act of pure joy! :-) 'My own heart' is a me or ego wanting. I want to win lotto! The world is not a projection by anyone or anybody. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > The ME is only a temporary idea. Don't bother so much with it.>> > > > > > > > > > > > > A ME wrote the above sentence > > > > > > *It does no good to deny the personal self* from a real position > OR > > a > > > philosophical one, because it is a me asserting both. > > > > > > It takes a ME. > > > > Yes, I must admit that there is a " me " writing this, but I have a > > suspicion that this " me " is a functioning of Totality rather than > > a " me " doing anything. > > > > It is a ME that is having a suspicion also, and the me might as well > not have the suspicion it makes no difference. > > > > > No-one *vanishes* > > > > > > And all the *inherentness* of a personal self is *still there* > > > including the good, the bad and ugly. > > > > > > Because of ones spiritual practice some character traits may be > > > purified or refined but this could occurr in any person so > desiring > > > of striving for the same perfection of character with no interest > > in > > > spiritual practice or 'getting enlightened'. > > >>>>>>>> Those who claim to be " enlightened " say that the " me " has > been > > obliterated in them.>>>>>>>> > > > A person claiming enlightenment is like a lightbulb claiming to be > electricity. God owns the person not the other way around. > > The 'me' is still there, it is just not what 'they' really are. > > > > This may be because of a brain damage rather than a true spiritual > > Realization :-), > > > Maybe > > > >>>>but I suspect that the truth is that the " me " is an > > illusion and that it is not needed>>>> > > > No, the me is absolutely needed, and cannot be got rid of! It is just > not really real > > > > > > > What is God? > > > Does he have a will? > > > What is the world? > > > WHY is the world the way it IS? > > > > Simple qustions: :-) > > > > God is everything there is. > > > And everything that isn't. > > > > > God does not have a will. God *is* The Will.>>>>> > > > Functioning AS will in personal selves. > > > > >>>> The world is Maya, or the Timeless Matrix, God is the Timeless > Matix > > together with the _experience_ of the Timeless Matrix.>>>>>> > Think of the > > Matrix as one absolute existence that is immovable, indestructible > > and unchangeable. The Matrix is timelessly self-aware. The world is > > an observation point inside this Matrix, and as a point the world > is > > litterary nothing. Awareness observing this point makes the world > > appear, and each observation point lead to another observation > point, > > not as a result of some action, but as a fact of what already > > timelessly is. This creates the appearance of time. > > > > The world is as it is because it cannot be otherwise. There is no > > entity changing, creating, altering or in any way able to change > what > > timelessly is. God's Will is not a result of some being doing > > anything, but rather the result of observation points being > > experienced inside the changeless Matrix. The last observation > point > > lies in an infinite future. We are heading towards that future all > > the time but we will never reach it. So time will go on endlessly. > > The final point has already been reached by infinite intelligence > and > > love. And do you know what has reached it? It is awareness itself > > that is this final timeless point in the Matrix and now it is > > experiencing the rest of the Matrix in all its splendour. > Observation > > begins in a state of total " separation " and then moves up into > > integration in the form of evolution. Humanity is the first step of > > awareness really being able to experience itself as beings. But > this > > first step is painful because it is the transition zone between > > separation and wholeness. > > > > How's that for a speculation? maybe I should write a sci-fi novel > > based on this? :-) > > > Maybe you should! > > > > > > > > Let's see: " Maybe I can do this or that in order to help him or > > > her. " > > > > Nope, sorry, you cannot help the past, the past is already > GONE, > > > and > > > > you can only see and experience the past.>>>>> > > > > > > > > > You are experiencing NOW and can act from that now. > > > > No, the experience of time moving is an automatic process.>>>>> > > > Time does not move and does not *cause* anything. > There is only now which time and things 'pass through' > > > >It is all > > happening with infinite precision.>>>>>> > > > All inter-related yes. > > > > >>>>>>If you really could do something > > by using the intellect, this world would explode into tiny pieces, > > because you must synchronize every " particle " in the Universe in > > order to change it, and the human intellect is utterly incapable of > > doing something like that.>>>>> > > > You can do many things with the intellect. We have the amount of > intellect specifically suited to us as the evolutionary beings we are. > > Mind acts on itself. > > > >This world is an infinite complex quantum > > state evolving (experienced observation points).> > > > God looks at himself. > > > > >It is not possible > > to mess with just a tiny part of it and forget the rest of the > > Universe.>>> > > > Or, it is not possible to change one part without affecting another. > Singular causation and effect doesn't exist. > > > > > > The benefit or worth of the development of the heart is something > > > that one must find out for themselves. > > > > > > What is love, what is forgiveness, why love, why forgive, what is > > > kindness, why practice loving kindness, why not be angry and hate? > > > > > > Why one can experience these emotions and under what > circumstances, > > > what affects they have on ones self and upon others is all up to > > our > > > own very personal life exploration and experience of lifes > learning. > > > > I want to experience the world being projected out of my own heart > as > > an effortless act of pure joy! :-) > > > 'My own heart' is a me or ego wanting. > > I want to win lotto! > > The world is not a projection by anyone or anybody. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Yes, maybe a ME is needed in order to experience things. The me would then be the idea of being a small fragment, and the ME would be the realization of oneness. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Hi again, > Yes, maybe a ME is needed in order to experience things. The me would > then be the idea of being a small fragment, and the ME would be the > realization of oneness. > A ME is a necessity for interaction and an apparatus for experience. A ME is a 'part of' the oneness you speak of above. Kind Regards, Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > Yes, maybe a ME is needed in order to experience things. The me > would > > then be the idea of being a small fragment, and the ME would be the > > realization of oneness. > > > > > A ME is a necessity for interaction and an apparatus for experience. > > A ME is a 'part of' the oneness you speak of above. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott Yes, I think the ME is a must in order to have experience of any kind. The me, or the ego is very valuable and a must exist in my opinion as a first step of experiencing the world. Then comes the next step: breaking out of the ego into a vaster and more free state of being. The egoless state is I believe the same state as the ego, but where identification has moved from a separate self to identification with the All. The ego cannot identify itself with the All other than as a thought experiment. The ego is itself the idea of separation and cannot move away from itself. Something higher must shatter the idea of separation. " The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. " -- Albert Einstein It will not help you to say: " I am already Oneness " if you still _experience_ yourself as a separate fragment. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Hi again Anders, > Yes, I think the ME is a must in order to have experience of any > kind.>>>>>> It is a ME that thinks so! >The me, or the ego is very valuable and a must exist in my > opinion as a first step of experiencing the world.>>>>>> It is a ME that thinks so. >Then comes the > next step: breaking out of the ego into a vaster and more free state > of being.>>>>> The Me is what binds a ME TO a ME. >The egoless state is I believe the same state as the ego, > but where identification has moved from a separate self to > identification with the All> ME or ego identification is *false* identification. >The ego cannot identify itself with the > All other than as a thought experiment> Yes, the ME is the false identification of itself. The ME says 'I am ME!' >The ego is itself the idea of > separation and cannot move away from itself. Something higher must > shatter the idea of separation.>>>>> It is not about shattering anything just realizing that the identification is *false* and not real. > > " The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level > of thinking we were at when we created them. " -- Albert Einstein I think he was talking about the problems facing mankind in the world, but thinking will not help you (in the end ) find the 'answers' to the questions you have been posing. > It will not help you to say: " I am already Oneness " if you still > _experience_ yourself as a separate fragment>>>> The material you are talking about is projecting all this outward in the form of 'It will not help you...etc' but 'you' have to take this inward. The ME ( of 'you' ) is trying to figure out this material which cannot be figured out through intellectual knowing, it just pushes 'what you are' away impossibly far and it is a ME that pushes. A ME will never realize ( nor can ever realize ) until the end of all time. Who says or *can* say 'I am Oneness' and who experiences or would experience this oneness? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > > Yes, I think the ME is a must in order to have experience of any > > kind.>>>>>> > > > It is a ME that thinks so! > > > > >The me, or the ego is very valuable and a must exist in my > > opinion as a first step of experiencing the world.>>>>>> > > > It is a ME that thinks so. > > > > >Then comes the > > next step: breaking out of the ego into a vaster and more free > state > > of being.>>>>> > > > The Me is what binds a ME TO a ME. > > > >The egoless state is I believe the same state as the ego, > > but where identification has moved from a separate self to > > identification with the All> > > > ME or ego identification is *false* identification. > > > >The ego cannot identify itself with the > > All other than as a thought experiment> > > > Yes, the ME is the false identification of itself. > The ME says 'I am ME!' > > > > >The ego is itself the idea of > > separation and cannot move away from itself. Something higher must > > shatter the idea of separation.>>>>> > > > It is not about shattering anything just realizing that the > identification is *false* and not real. > > > > > > " The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same > level > > of thinking we were at when we created them. " -- Albert Einstein > > > I think he was talking about the problems facing mankind in the > world, but thinking will not help you (in the end ) find > the 'answers' to the questions you have been posing. > > > > It will not help you to say: " I am already Oneness " if you still > > _experience_ yourself as a separate fragment>>>> > > > The material you are talking about is projecting all this outward in > the form of 'It will not help you...etc' but 'you' have to take this > inward. > > The ME ( of 'you' ) is trying to figure out this material which > cannot be figured out through intellectual knowing, it just > pushes 'what you are' away impossibly far and it is a ME that pushes. > > A ME will never realize ( nor can ever realize ) until the end of all > time. > > Who says or *can* say 'I am Oneness' and who experiences or would > experience this oneness? > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. I think 'I am Oneness' can be experience as direct knowing, not knowing *about* which is all the intellect can do. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Hi again, > I think 'I am Oneness' can be experience as direct knowing, not > knowing *about* which is all the intellect can do. Who would ( / could ) think such a thing? Who would ( / could ) say such a thing? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > I think 'I am Oneness' can be experience as direct knowing, not > > knowing *about* which is all the intellect can do. > > > Who would ( / could ) think such a thing? > Who would ( / could ) say such a thing? > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. There is no doer doing anything. There is no thinker thinking anything. Thinking _happens_. Everything is an automatic unfolding. When you see a raindrop hitting a calm pond there are circles created in the pond. So clearly the raindrop is a doer. How else could there be such perfect circles created? And when many raindrops hit the pond an intricate interference pattern of circles is created. Look at all these doers! No. A raindrop is not a doer. Similarly, what I write now is an _automatic_ happening. I am like the raindrop - I don't _do_ anything. But there is a difference. I can enjoy myself as an experiencer of life unfolding. I doubt that the raindrop can experience anything. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Hi again, > > > I think 'I am Oneness' can be experience as direct knowing, not > > > knowing *about* which is all the intellect can do. > > > > > > Who would ( / could ) think such a thing? > > Who would ( / could ) say such a thing? > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > There is no doer doing anything>>> Yes, there is, you choose the adjective, verb or noun. <<There is no thinker thinking > anything.>>> Oh, Yes, there is! <<<Thinking _happens_. Everything is an automatic unfolding>>> Everything *happens*, yes. BUT, again beware of half truths, and again you cannot apply law of excluded middle logic to reality concerns > When you see a raindrop hitting a calm pond there are circles created > in the pond. So clearly the raindrop is a doer.>>> Using your example. Yes. >How else could there > be such perfect circles created? And when many raindrops hit the pond > an intricate interference pattern of circles is created. Look at all > these doers! No>> Yes, everyTHING affects the whole and IS the whole. <<A raindrop is not a doer>> Yes, it is, to use your own example, it is participating in making the whole *what it is*. Although in your example every doer contributes the same thing, and the result is always the same. >>>Similarly, what I write > now is an _automatic_ happening>> It is a ME that thinks and says so. >>I am like the raindrop - I don't > _do_ anything.>>> Again, it is a ME that says so. >But there is a difference. I can enjoy myself as an > experiencer of life unfolding>> No, you can't Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > I think 'I am Oneness' can be experience as direct knowing, not > > > > knowing *about* which is all the intellect can do. > > > > > > > > > Who would ( / could ) think such a thing? > > > Who would ( / could ) say such a thing? > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > There is no doer doing anything>>> > > > Yes, there is, you choose the adjective, verb or noun. > > > > <<There is no thinker thinking > > anything.>>> > > > Oh, Yes, there is! > > > <<<Thinking _happens_. Everything is an automatic unfolding>>> > > > Everything *happens*, yes. > > BUT, again beware of half truths, and again you cannot apply law of > excluded middle logic to reality concerns > > > > > When you see a raindrop hitting a calm pond there are circles > created > > in the pond. So clearly the raindrop is a doer.>>> > > > Using your example. > > Yes. > > > > >How else could there > > be such perfect circles created? And when many raindrops hit the > pond > > an intricate interference pattern of circles is created. Look at > all > > these doers! No>> > > > Yes, everyTHING affects the whole and IS the whole. > > > > <<A raindrop is not a doer>> > > > Yes, it is, to use your own example, it is participating in making > the whole *what it is*. > > Although in your example every doer contributes the same thing, and > the result is always the same. > > > > >>>Similarly, what I write > > now is an _automatic_ happening>> > > > It is a ME that thinks and says so. > > > >>I am like the raindrop - I don't > > _do_ anything.>>> > > > Again, it is a ME that says so. > > > >But there is a difference. I can enjoy myself as an > > experiencer of life unfolding>> > > > No, you can't That is pretty accurate. The " me " as the ego is burdened by a constant struggle against life. I see this struggle as something probably only needed for a while. Then there will be an awakening I hope. :-) You see a raindrop as a " thing " and therefore you say that it is a doer. But a raindrop is not an object. There are no objects. So how can there be a doer without any separate entity existing? /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 > That is pretty accurate. The " me " as the ego is burdened by a > constant struggle against life. I see this struggle as something > probably only needed for a while. Then there will be an awakening I > hope. :-) > > You see a raindrop as a " thing " and therefore you say that it is a > doer. But a raindrop is not an object. There are no objects. So how > can there be a doer without any separate entity existing? > > /AL How can there be anything which is " done to " either? Thus, how can there be any observer of situations in which doings occur? And how can there now be anything to observe? With no separation of actual things, all you can say about talk, is that talk is talk -- not an actual thing or event that takes place, nor something else other than an actual thing or event. Talk about what talk is, or isn't, or can say, or can't say -- is just more talk. And so we talk. Nothing is said, but that nothing isn't a lack of anything, is all-inclusive, because there is no separation occurring in it. :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > That is pretty accurate. The " me " as the ego is burdened by a > > constant struggle against life. I see this struggle as something > > probably only needed for a while. Then there will be an awakening I > > hope. :-) > > > > You see a raindrop as a " thing " and therefore you say that it is a > > doer. But a raindrop is not an object. There are no objects. So how > > can there be a doer without any separate entity existing? > > > > /AL > > How can there be anything which is " done to " either? > > Thus, how can there be any observer of situations in > which doings occur? > > And how can there now be anything to observe? > > With no separation of actual things, all you can > say about talk, is that talk is talk -- not > an actual thing or event that takes place, > nor something else other than an actual thing > or event. > > Talk about what talk is, or isn't, or > can say, or can't say -- is just more talk. > > And so we talk. > > Nothing is said, but that nothing isn't a lack of > anything, is all-inclusive, because there is > no separation occurring in it. > > :-) > > -- Dan Awareness is nothing. What awareness is aware of is everything. How can awareness be nothing? The answer is that awareness is no-thing. And what awareness is aware of is every-thing. Awareness is aware of everything now, so the future has already happened, and we are looking at the future now, infinitely fast. But what has already happened is infinite so this looking at the future will go on forever. So infinitely fast looking into the future is what we call time passing. When did awareness as no-thing begin looking at ever- thing? The answer is that awareness began looking NOW. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Hi again, > > >>I am like the raindrop - I don't > > > _do_ anything.>>> > > > > > > Again, it is a ME that says so. > > > > > > >But there is a difference. I can enjoy myself as an > > > experiencer of life unfolding>> > > > > > > No, you can't > That is pretty accurate. The " me " as the ego is burdened by a > constant struggle against life>>>> It is a ME that thinks so! >>>>I see this struggle as something > probably only needed for a while.>>>>> It is a ME that thinks so! <<<<Then there will be an awakening I > hope. :-)>>>> It is a ME that hopes so, but Who for? > You see a raindrop as a " thing " and therefore you say that it is a > doer. But a raindrop is not an object.>>> Yes, it is. >>>There are no objects.>>> Yes, there are. >So how > can there be a doer without any separate entity existing? There is *both* the doing AS a ME and the self-existent whole functioning and not the slightest conundrum therein. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > >>I am like the raindrop - I don't > > > > _do_ anything.>>> > > > > > > > > > Again, it is a ME that says so. > > > > > > > > > >But there is a difference. I can enjoy myself as an > > > > experiencer of life unfolding>> > > > > > > > > > No, you can't > > > > That is pretty accurate. The " me " as the ego is burdened by a > > constant struggle against life>>>> > > > It is a ME that thinks so! > > > >>>>I see this struggle as something > > probably only needed for a while.>>>>> > > > It is a ME that thinks so! > > > <<<<Then there will be an awakening I > > hope. :-)>>>> > > > It is a ME that hopes so, but Who for? > > > > > You see a raindrop as a " thing " and therefore you say that it is a > > doer. But a raindrop is not an object.>>> > > > Yes, it is. > > > >>>There are no objects.>>> > > > Yes, there are. > > > >So how > > can there be a doer without any separate entity existing? > > > There is *both* the doing AS a ME and the self-existent whole > functioning and not the slightest conundrum therein. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Could it not be possible that the self-existent whole is all there is and a ME only an aspect of that functioning without any volition of its own? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Hi again, > > >So how > > > can there be a doer without any separate entity existing? > > > > > > There is *both* the doing AS a ME and the self-existent whole > > functioning and not the slightest conundrum therein. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > Could it not be possible that the self-existent whole is all there is > and a ME only an aspect of that functioning without any volition of > its own? Yes, the self-existent whole is all there is, even so by definition. And, the *ME* *doing* is a part aspect of the whole functioning, and it *takes* a ME to DO. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > >So how > > > > can there be a doer without any separate entity existing? > > > > > > > > > There is *both* the doing AS a ME and the self-existent whole > > > functioning and not the slightest conundrum therein. > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. > > > > Could it not be possible that the self-existent whole is all there > is > > and a ME only an aspect of that functioning without any volition of > > its own? > > > Yes, the self-existent whole is all there is, even so by definition. > > And, the *ME* *doing* is a part aspect of the whole functioning, and > it *takes* a ME to DO. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Feel yourself as Allness in motion. The ME you talk about is _everything_ you experience. You as a ME is the Single Source of what you experience. What you read right now is _you_. The computer screen in front of you, is _you_. The people and the cars you see on the street, they are all _you_. That's your ME. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Hi Anders, > > Feel yourself as Allness in motion.> Feel the rhythmn of the music. This is a ME subjectifying. The way that can be spoken... >The ME you talk about is > _everything_ you experience> No, it's not. >You as a ME is the Single Source of what > you experience. What you read right now is _you_. The computer screen > in front of you, is _you_. The people and the cars you see on the > street, they are all _you_. That's your ME. :-)>> No. It is a ME that has said all the above, and a ME that searches. Who is this ME telling ME that the car is ME? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > > > > Feel yourself as Allness in motion.> > > > Feel the rhythmn of the music. > > This is a ME subjectifying. > > The way that can be spoken... > > > > >The ME you talk about is > > _everything_ you experience> > > > No, it's not. You are pure awareness aware of a ME. The ME is the experience but not the experiencer. > > > >You as a ME is the Single Source of what > > you experience. What you read right now is _you_. The computer > screen > > in front of you, is _you_. The people and the cars you see on the > > street, they are all _you_. That's your ME. :-)>> > > > No. > > It is a ME that has said all the above, and a ME that searches. > > Who is this ME telling ME that the car is ME? There is no one telling no one. Everything that happens is a spontaneous projection appearing in awareness. There is no doer. Think of the world as popping into awareness _now_. This takes zero seconds. How much can a ME do in the span of zero seconds. Hahaha. :-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 Hi Anders, > > It is a ME that has said all the above, and a ME that searches. > > > > Who is this ME telling ME that the car is ME? > There is no one telling no one>> It is a *ME* that says the above. Beware the half truth. >Everything that happens is a > spontaneous projection appearing in awareness.> What projection? 'In' what awareness? <There is no doer. > It is a *ME* that says so. > Think of the world as popping into awareness _now_> Think of the most beautiful girl in the world Thinking goes round and round >This takes zero > seconds. How much can a ME do in the span of zero seconds. Hahaha. :-)> Time arises *because* of the behaviour of phenomenon ( mind in space ( mind )) which *includes a ME, the ME's actions, and the ME's thinking*. Any phenomenon does not '*have time* in which to act or move' it's 'moving or acting' IS time and 'times arrows'. It is not the 'other way around'. Time does not 'cause' anything, neither is it 'available' as a span in which things can act or move. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > > > > It is a ME that has said all the above, and a ME that searches. > > > > > > Who is this ME telling ME that the car is ME? > > > > There is no one telling no one>> > > > It is a *ME* that says the above. > > Beware the half truth. The ME you talk about is not a thing. You talk about a process. And that process appear in awareness. Awareness itself is not a process. > > > >Everything that happens is a > > spontaneous projection appearing in awareness.> > > > What projection? > > 'In' what awareness? You are the awareness at the center of your world observing that world. So the center of of you is awareness and the world appear as a projection in that awareness. > > > > <There is no doer. > > > > It is a *ME* that says so. > > > > Think of the world as popping into awareness _now_> > > > Think of the most beautiful girl in the world > > Thinking goes round and round > > > > >This takes zero > > seconds. How much can a ME do in the span of zero seconds. > Hahaha. :-)> > > > Time arises *because* of the behaviour of phenomenon ( mind in space > ( mind )) which *includes a ME, the ME's actions, and the ME's > thinking*. > > Any phenomenon does not '*have time* in which to act or move' > it's 'moving or acting' IS time and 'times arrows'. > > It is not the 'other way around'. > > Time does not 'cause' anything, neither is it 'available' as a span > in which things can act or move. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Yes, we can say that time arises because of change appearing, that change causes the arrow of time, and we can even say that what changes is ME, but we cannot say that a ME *causes* change, the ME is change itself. The ME is not the doer, but an automatic process of change. So to say that a ME thinks, does and say things is to to say the the ME is the *cause* and *creator*. But the Universe is an automatic process. There is no creator. There is no doer. And yes, it is a ME that says this, but the ME happens automatically and is not a doer. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 Hi again Anders, > The ME you talk about is not a thing> 'The' ME is a *thing*; a mind / body, and a *phenomenal* thing also, without which thinking and doing could not happen. >You talk about a process> A ME is not a process, a ME *includes* 'what you are probably thinking of when you say and mean '''process'''' >And > that process appear in awareness> Nothing appears in awareness. <Awareness itself is not a process> What then is it, *apart* from the noun 'awareness' that is thought about and then described? > > >Everything that happens is a > > > spontaneous projection appearing in awareness.> > > > > > > What projection? > > > > 'In' what awareness? > > You are the awareness at the center of your world observing that > world> No, I'm not and it is a ME that says so. >So the center of of you is awareness and the world appear as a > projection in that awareness. What center? 'No, it's not', and the world does not appear as a projection in awareness. And it is a ME that says so. > Yes, we can say that time arises because of change appearing, that > change causes the arrow of time, and we can even say that what > changes is ME, but we cannot say that a ME *causes* change, the ME is > change itself> >The ME is not the doer, but an automatic process of > change> The ME is not a process. >So to say that a ME thinks, does and say things is to to say > the the ME is the *cause* and *creator*> No, it isn't; To say the above is to say that 'Anders ( as a ME ) thinks that a ME thinking and doing means that ME is the *cause and creator*' ME is a *participant*, every ME interacts with the 'environment of the whole' and yet ME is a part of it. >But the Universe is an > automatic process.> 'Yes' It is 'automatic' in the sense that it happens 'by itself' AS a bound up *whole* OF *inter-relatedness* It is not automatic in the sense of an automatic dishwasher. >There is no creator. There is no doer> There are many creators, a multitude of beings, including Gods and others, and you yourself as a ME. These are also all doers *participating*. > And yes, it is a ME that says this, but the ME happens automatically > and is not a doer> The ME *is* the doer, and it is what *does*. There can be no *doING* without a ME. And, yes it is a ME that says so Kind Regards, Scott. 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.