Guest guest Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > 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. Attend to the no-thing, the One Subject, the Source from which manifestation appear. The ME is a part of phenominality. Know yourself as changeless awareness. :-) Every " thing " , every manifestation is only the past, a ripple in timeless consciousness. The ME is already the past, and the past cannot change. The past cannot do anything. The ME cannot do anything. _Everything_ you are aware of has already happened. You see the past and thing that it is alive. It is not alive. Only pure awareness is alive, and pure awareness is not a doer or thinker but the experiencer of doing and thinking. Doing and thinking is always only the past. > > > >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. Everything appear in awareness, including the ME of course. > > > <Awareness itself is not a process> > > > What then is it, *apart* from the noun 'awareness' that is thought > about and then described? Awareness is not a " thing " . Awareness is what makes the appearance of time passing noticed. Something in time cannot notice change in time. Only that which is not change can observe change. The ME you talk about is a changing manifestation, a ME cannot observe itself, it is awareness that observes the changing manifestation we call the past (everything we call the material universe is the past seen from awareness). Awareness is changeless. > > > > > > >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. If you believe science then you will know that the sun you see in the sky is not the sun itself but a *past* image of the sun 8 minutes old. Everything you observe from your center, your awareness is old. Even your body is old, a dead past. Only awareness is zero seconds away from the future, from the Source. Even thoughts and feelings are old when being observed by awareness. The entire manifested material world has already happened when you become aware of it. You are untouchable! How can the past touch you? It can't! :-) " You are the one witness of everything and are always completely free. The cause of your bondage is that you see the witness as something other than this. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.7 > > > >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. > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing but consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 > > > > 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. " Since you have been bitten by the black snake, the opinion about yourself that 'I am the doer,' drink the antidote of faith in the fact that 'I am not the doer,' and be happy. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.8 What you call interaction is not something cause by individual objects communicating. Existence is a wholeness. Change happens not because of some individual doers but as a single transition from state to state. > > > >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. Reality is completely automatic. Change happens as a result of everything you experience going from one state to another _completely_ automatic. A thought in your mind is as automatic as an automatic dishwasher. There is a difference in hierarchy of complexity between a human being, a dog, a butterfly, a single cell, a dishwasher, a molecule e t c, but the fundamental change we see in *all* these things is because the manifested material universe goes from one state to the next as a _single_ movement. You and I have as much volition as a dishwasher. In principle there is no single difference because all movements are one total happening. There are no individual doers. > > > >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*. Only as an appearance. Think of the Universe as an automatic machine. :-) > > > > > 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 A ME *and* the doing happen as a spontaneous manifestation of the Tao. All are One. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Hi again Anders, <Attend to the no-thing, the One Subject, the Source from which manifestation appear> Any 'attending' or trying to do is the action of a ME. <The ME is a part of phenominality.> Yes, every *thing* is. >Know yourself as changeless awareness. :-)> This is not possible. <Every " thing " , every manifestation is only the past, a ripple in timeless consciousness.> Objects arise and disappear and 'make time in the middle' Every object is it's *own duration* within Now. The NOW in which appears ALL time that ever 'was' or ever 'will' be. <The ME is already the past, and the past cannot change. The past cannot do anything. The ME cannot do anything> The ME and everything else is what makes the 'past' what it is. Our actions occurr 'live' as they arise, as soon as a being 'wills' it uprises as an *event* in the unity creating time with the uprising of action and change, actions do not *occurr* in the past, they *are* time itself. <_Everything_ you are aware of has already happened> The things that one is aware of are 'becoming' the 'past' yes. <You see the past and thing that it is alive. It is not alive> There is nothing that is not alive. >Only pure awareness is alive> This is a subjectification of 'pure awareness'? What is pure 'awareness' *apart* from the noun that we *think* about and then give a description TO? <and pure awareness is not a doer or thinker but the experiencer of doing and thinking> Yes, '''pure awareness''' cannot think or do. <Doing and thinking is always only the past> Doing and thinking creates time, making the 'past' and all time what it is. <Everything appear in awareness, including the ME of course> *Nothing appears IN awareness* <Awareness is not a " thing " > What then is it *apart* from the noun 'awareness' that is *thought* about and then described? <Awareness is what makes the appearance of time passing noticed> No. Awareness '*itself alone*' cannot notice times passing. A clock *and* the ME watching it makes the appearance of times passing noticed, and so does anything that displays times arrows. Time passing needs an interpreting mechanism as a me that has 'knowledge' of times arrows. If times passing is being noticed then it is being noticed by an interpreting ME because it is WE that have decided both on times direction and it's definition ( i.e according to certain times arrows it is going forward ) Everything is 'aware' but all animals and other objects do not notice time passing as we do or they do not notice it at all. If ''something'' is outside of time then there is no reference at all and no time *being noticed as passing*, it is timeless 'eternal now'. >Something in time cannot notice change in time> EveryTHING 'in' time IS time itself, what defines time, making time what it is. But it takes a me to notice time passing. ''Pure awareness'' cannot notice 'time passing' <Only that which is not change can observe change> A ME is what notices time passing *as we know it*. >The ME you talk about is a changing manifestation, a ME cannot observe itself> Yes. >it is awareness that observes the changing manifestation we call the past> Is awareness an observer? (everything we call the material universe is the past seen from awareness). Awareness is changeless> Everything is in the same now which includes the past and future. The now doesn't change. <Everything you observe from your center, your awareness is old> What center? Whose awareness? <Even your body is old, a dead past> There is nothing dead anywhere, past present or future. <Only awareness is zero seconds away from the future, from the Source. Even thoughts and feelings are old when being observed by awareness.> Yes, everything upon arising 'becomes the past' but it does not arise 'in the past'. <What you call interaction is not something cause by individual objects communicating> The cause of beings participating is *both* the action of individuals and the whole acting as one. But these 'two' are one thing only. Everything arises as *one* and never a thing in itself, singular causation does not exist. Yet there is no contradiction between the doing of each individual and the functioning as a whole, there is no which 'came first'. <Existence is a wholeness> Yes, a wholeness of *inter-relatedness* >Change happens not because of some individual doers but as a single transition from state to state> Change happens because of individual reflections includings human MEs. > >But the Universe is an > > automatic process.> Yes. <Reality is completely automatic> As a whole of inter-relatedness. <Change happens as a result of everything you experience going from one state to another _completely_ automatic> No, that is what change *is*. Change happens because of the *interaction* of a countless reflections within oneness. The whole is *both* a bound up whole and the infinite reflections participating. You cannot have one without the other. <A thought in your mind is as automatic as an automatic dishwasher> Thoughts arise because of specific reasons which can be involuntary / instinctual in both animals and humans, or willed / selective / controlled conscious choices. A washing machine is a mechanical device controlled by a thinking mind / body apparatus, it cannot think for itself. <There is a difference in hierarchy of complexity between a human being, a dog, a butterfly, a single cell, a dishwasher, a molecule e t c> Yes. <but the fundamental change we see in *all* these things is because the manifested material universe goes from one state to the next as a _single_ movement> The *whole* operates as a *whole of inter-relatedness*. <You and I have as much volition as a dishwasher> We human beings have a highly complex brain and mind / body capable of mentation and decision. A dishwasher can't and doesn't think. <In principle there is no single difference because all movements are one total happening> Yes, all is one thing, consisting of all 'happenings', those happenings make the whole what it is, but the one thing *is what it is* because of all these interactions. It is not enough to simply say that all is one. Each reflected individual contributes and participates in making the whole what it is. <There are no individual doers> A DOER has to be an individual. > There are many creators, a multitude of beings, including Gods and > others, and you yourself as a ME. > > These are also all doers *participating*. <Only as an appearance> No, as participation, with each affecting the whole and each other. >Think of the Universe as an automatic machine. :-) Think of your favourite movie... It is a ME that thinks to thinks so, and that ME that thinks so is also a *phenomenon* within the manifestation. <A ME *and* the doing happen as a spontaneous manifestation of the Tao. All are One> Yes, everything is a spontaneous arising in the whole. There are no separate happenings in the unity. It is meaningless to talk of 'A' restricted singular causation. As a ME is DOing it arises as an event within the whole. What we call 'free will' is both the arising as choice or action of a being and the event within the unity as it's functioning. There is no contradiction between these 'two', they are one thing only, described differently. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > .... > > Yes, everything is a spontaneous arising in the whole. > > There are no separate happenings in the unity. > > It is meaningless to talk of 'A' restricted singular causation. > > As a ME is DOing it arises as an event within the whole. > > What we call 'free will' is both the arising as choice or action of a > being and the event within the unity as it's functioning. > There is no contradiction between these 'two', they are one thing > only, described differently. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Free will is the idea that there is a separate doer doing something, and as long as this idea is there then there *is* a separate doer doing something, at least the experience of being a separate doer. But I suspect that free will is only an automatic process based on the past and that this process is not really needed. The ego is not really needed. I think J Krishnamurti had a point when he said: " Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge, which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind. " /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 Hi again, > > Yes, everything is a spontaneous arising in the whole. > > > > There are no separate happenings in the unity. > > > > It is meaningless to talk of 'A' restricted singular causation. > > > > As a ME is DOing it arises as an event within the whole. > > > > What we call 'free will' is both the arising as choice or action of > a > > being and the event within the unity as it's functioning. > > There is no contradiction between these 'two', they are one thing > > only, described differently. > > > > Kind Regards, > Free will is the idea that there is a separate doer doing something, Will is not an idea. > and as long as this idea is there then there *is* a separate doer > doing something, at least the experience of being a separate doer. There is always a separate doer. Any DOing is being done by a separate doer. > > But I suspect that free will is only an automatic process based on > the past and that this process is not really needed. >The ego is not > really needed. It is the ego that says so! The ego is 'needed', even to formulate it's own unnecessity Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi again, > > > > Yes, everything is a spontaneous arising in the whole. > > > > > > There are no separate happenings in the unity. > > > > > > It is meaningless to talk of 'A' restricted singular causation. > > > > > > As a ME is DOing it arises as an event within the whole. > > > > > > What we call 'free will' is both the arising as choice or action > of > > a > > > being and the event within the unity as it's functioning. > > > There is no contradiction between these 'two', they are one thing > > > only, described differently. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Free will is the idea that there is a separate doer doing > something, > > > Will is not an idea. Will is the idea of being a doer together with a feeling of having a will operating. > > > > and as long as this idea is there then there *is* a separate doer > > doing something, at least the experience of being a separate doer. > > > There is always a separate doer. > > Any DOing is being done by a separate doer. Maybe it would be better to say that the DOing is a _process_ happening automatically, and that there is no 'ghost in the machine' as an _object_ behind this DOing, i.e. no separate doer? > > > > > > But I suspect that free will is only an automatic process based on > > the past and that this process is not really needed. > > > >The ego is not > > really needed. > > > It is the ego that says so! > > The ego is 'needed', even to formulate it's own unnecessity If all is an automatic happening, then it is that happening being played out by itself as a single ocean, and the ego is a result of a total happening. If we look at separate waves in this ocean and pick up an 'ego', then of course this ego is needed to express itself as saying something, but then we have divided the whole and are looking at the parts as if they are separate objects in themselves. But maybe there is just the ocean as single totality happening. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Scott, Add few more questions to ur list : Where is the Ego ??? What is the name of the Ego ??? Who has a Ego ??? anders_lindman [anders_lindman] Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:19 PM Nisargadatta Re: Anders. What is the ego? 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 ** 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 July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Hello, > Scott, > Add few more questions to ur list : > Where is the Ego ??? > What is the name of the Ego ??? > Who has a Ego ??? *Who* asks 'Who am I'? Yes, we can ask many questions and let a ME answer them. 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.