Guest guest Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 Nondoing is not the opposite of doing. The opposite of doing is being inactive. Nondoing is a state where there is no doer there at all either to be doing or not doing something. Nondoing is the flow of life without the idea of a separate " me " being a doer inserted into that flow. The state of nondoing is called Wu-wei in Taoism. If there is such a state, then how does one obtain it? Is it possible to do something in order to reach that state? And would one really want to be in such state? What are the benefits of being a nondoer? A nondoer, that sounds like a zombie! :-) How much fun can it be to be a nondoer? I don't know, but something in me tells me that a state of nondoing is to really be the One Doer, and that a separate " me " doing things is like believing in Santa Claus and therefore an illusion creating suffering. Nondoing is to become one with Time. To be a separate doer is to be in a constant struggle *against* time. So my spiritual practice must be to little by little stop clinging to the separate " me " as a doer. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Hi again Anders, > Nondoing is the flow of life without the idea of a separate " me " > being a doer inserted into that flow. The state of nondoing is called > Wu-wei in Taoism. > > If there is such a state, then how does one obtain it?> If one attains it, it is a ME that attains, and thus there is a striving for this attainment by a ME. > Is it possible > to do something in order to reach that state?> If something is done it is a ME that is DOing. What would the *state* be OF? > And would one really > want to be in such state?> If one likes or dislikes it is a ME liking or disliking. Like and dislike, want and not wanting all occurr to a ME, so too the question. >What are the benefits of being a nondoer? A > nondoer, that sounds like a zombie! :-) Any benefit could only be TO a ME > How much fun can it be to be > a nondoer?> Any fun would be experienced and enjoyed by a ME. >I don't know, but something in me tells me that a state of > nondoing is to really be the One Doer, and that a separate " me " doing > things is like believing in Santa Claus and therefore an illusion > creating suffering> The whole doing is the doing of individuals as an inter-related whole. > Nondoing is to become one with Time. To be a separate doer is to be > in a constant struggle *against* time> Any doing is to become one with time since actions and change are times arrows, time itself. As a reflected ME we can't but not DO. > > So *MY* spiritual practice must be to little by little stop clinging to > the separate " ME " as a doer. Have a look at the above again If you want to read a very good book not only on what 'non-doing' is about, but also a real gem of a book in itself have a look at 'The Zen teachings of Instantaneous Awakening' by Hui Hai I'm sure you would enjoy it. Below is the amazon link. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- /0946672032/qid=1087977037/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-1787527- 2100031?v=glance & s=books & n=507846 Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > Nondoing is the flow of life without the idea of a separate " me " > > being a doer inserted into that flow. The state of nondoing is > called > > Wu-wei in Taoism. > > > > If there is such a state, then how does one obtain it?> > > > If one attains it, it is a ME that attains, and thus there is a > striving for this attainment by a ME. Yes. > > > > Is it possible > > to do something in order to reach that state?> > > > If something is done it is a ME that is DOing. > What would the *state* be OF? Doing is happening. It is all happening automatically. > > > > And would one really > > want to be in such state?> > > > If one likes or dislikes it is a ME liking or disliking. > > Like and dislike, want and not wanting all occurr to a ME, so too the > question. > > > >What are the benefits of being a nondoer? A > > nondoer, that sounds like a zombie! :-) > > > Any benefit could only be TO a ME Yes, of course. I am. > > > > How much fun can it be to be > > a nondoer?> > > > Any fun would be experienced and enjoyed by a ME. > > > >I don't know, but something in me tells me that a state of > > nondoing is to really be the One Doer, and that a separate " me " > doing > > things is like believing in Santa Claus and therefore an illusion > > creating suffering> > > > The whole doing is the doing of individuals as an inter-related whole. The inter-related whole is the doer of all individuals. The ego thinks the individual is a doer. The Sage knows that Totality is the only doer. At least if we should believe what some Sages say. > > > > Nondoing is to become one with Time. To be a separate doer is to be > > in a constant struggle *against* time> > > > Any doing is to become one with time since actions and change are > times arrows, time itself. > As a reflected ME we can't but not DO. Doing happens, yes, but is worrying about a future really needed? > > > > > > So *MY* spiritual practice must be to little by little stop > clinging to > > the separate " ME " as a doer. > > > Have a look at the above again > > If you want to read a very good book not only on what 'non-doing' is > about, but also a real gem of a book in itself have a look at 'The > Zen teachings of Instantaneous Awakening' by Hui Hai > > I'm sure you would enjoy it. Below is the amazon link. > > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- > /0946672032/qid=1087977037/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002- 1787527- > 2100031?v=glance & s=books & n=507846 Thanks! /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > The inter-related whole is the doer of all individuals. The ego > thinks the individual is a doer. The Sage knows that Totality is the > only doer. At least if we should believe what some Sages say. > With some many quotes from sages rattling around that head of yours, I don't think there's room for much else! :-) Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > The inter-related whole is the doer of all individuals. The ego > > thinks the individual is a doer. The Sage knows that Totality is > the > > only doer. At least if we should believe what some Sages say. > > > > With some many quotes from sages rattling around that head of yours, > I don't think there's room for much else! :-) > > Joe Unless I really am Totality, then everything is potentially in me. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > The inter-related whole is the doer of all individuals. The ego > > > thinks the individual is a doer. The Sage knows that Totality is > > the > > > only doer. At least if we should believe what some Sages say. > > > > > > > With some many quotes from sages rattling around that head of > yours, > > I don't think there's room for much else! :-) > > > > Joe > > Unless I really am Totality, then everything is potentially in me. :-) > > /AL Nobody is totality -- throw those Ramesh and Wayne books away! ;-) Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > The inter-related whole is the doer of all individuals. The ego > > > > thinks the individual is a doer. The Sage knows that Totality > is > > > the > > > > only doer. At least if we should believe what some Sages say. > > > > > > > > > > With some many quotes from sages rattling around that head of > > yours, > > > I don't think there's room for much else! :-) > > > > > > Joe > > > > Unless I really am Totality, then everything is potentially in > me. :-) > > > > /AL > > Nobody is totality -- throw those Ramesh and Wayne books away! ;-) > > Joe Hehe. I think Ramesh and Wayne say that the human being is nothing but a body/mind mechanism, a created/extruded object in Totality not separated from Totality. I am myself reluctant to use the word create since I believe there is no creation, never has been any creation and never will be any creation anywhere in existence. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Hi again, > > If something is done it is a ME that is DOing. > > What would the *state* be OF? > > Doing is happening. It is all happening automatically. Yes, as a whole of *interelatedness*. > > >What are the benefits of being a nondoer? A > > > nondoer, that sounds like a zombie! :-) > > > > > > Any benefit could only be TO a ME > > Yes, of course. I am. I am a me? > > The whole doing is the doing of individuals as an inter-related > whole. > > The inter-related whole is the doer of all individuals> The whole cannot DO. >The ego > thinks the individual is a doer.> The ME is the doer. >The Sage knows that Totality is the > only doer> Totality can't DO. >At least if we should believe what some Sages say> If a Sage told you to stick your head in a fire... What is the difference between a sage and a hotdog vendor? > > Any doing is to become one with time since actions and change are > > times arrows, time itself. > > As a reflected ME we can't but not DO. > > Doing happens, yes, but is worrying about a future really needed? Any worrying is done by a ME. 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 Scott, Could you maybe explain what for you is the difference between a ME and a me ? I don't quite get it ... You wrote for example " And worrying is done by a ME " - that I can understand. But " The ME is the doer " , doesn't make sense for me. Shouldn't it be written " The ME is the illusionary doer " ? Thanks in advance .. Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > If something is done it is a ME that is DOing. > > > What would the *state* be OF? > > > > Doing is happening. It is all happening automatically. > > > Yes, as a whole of *interelatedness*. > > > > > >What are the benefits of being a nondoer? A > > > > nondoer, that sounds like a zombie! :-) > > > > > > > > > Any benefit could only be TO a ME > > > > Yes, of course. I am. > > > I am a me? > > > > > The whole doing is the doing of individuals as an inter-related > > whole. > > > > The inter-related whole is the doer of all individuals> > > > The whole cannot DO. > > > >The ego > > thinks the individual is a doer.> > > > The ME is the doer. > > > >The Sage knows that Totality is the > > only doer> > > > Totality can't DO. > > > >At least if we should believe what some Sages say> > > > If a Sage told you to stick your head in a fire... > > What is the difference between a sage and a hotdog vendor? > > > > > Any doing is to become one with time since actions and change are > > > times arrows, time itself. > > > As a reflected ME we can't but not DO. > > > > Doing happens, yes, but is worrying about a future really needed? > > > Any worrying is done by a ME. > > > 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 Werner, > Could you maybe explain what for you is the difference between a ME > and a me ? I don't quite get it ... I always capitalize ME, to mean the mind / body and / or ego that *thinks of and about itself* Below I wrote 'I am a me?' because I didn't understand Anders answer, see in that section below. > You wrote for example " And worrying is done by a ME " - that I can > understand. But " The ME is the doer " , doesn't make sense for me. By the ME is the doer I mean the mind / body and ego that thinks, moves, behaves and does things. > Shouldn't it be written " The ME is the illusionary doer " ? You could write it a number of ways depending on *your* understanding and how you use terms. The ME is the doer, there is not other that can DO. The ME as a mind / body ego is not an illusionary doer, it is illusionary in that it believes *itself* to be the Self. This illusionary ME is what searches for realization. Kind Regards, Scott. > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > If something is done it is a ME that is DOing. > > > > What would the *state* be OF? > > > > > > Doing is happening. It is all happening automatically. > > > > > > Yes, as a whole of *interelatedness*. > > > > > > > > >What are the benefits of being a nondoer? A > > > > > nondoer, that sounds like a zombie! :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Any benefit could only be TO a ME > > > > > > Yes, of course. I am. > > > > > > I am a me? > > > > > > > > The whole doing is the doing of individuals as an inter- related > > > whole. > > > > > > The inter-related whole is the doer of all individuals> > > > > > > The whole cannot DO. > > > > > > >The ego > > > thinks the individual is a doer.> > > > > > > The ME is the doer. > > > > > > >The Sage knows that Totality is the > > > only doer> > > > > > > Totality can't DO. > > > > > > >At least if we should believe what some Sages say> > > > > > > If a Sage told you to stick your head in a fire... > > > > What is the difference between a sage and a hotdog vendor? > > > > > > > > Any doing is to become one with time since actions and change > are > > > > times arrows, time itself. > > > > As a reflected ME we can't but not DO. > > > > > > Doing happens, yes, but is worrying about a future really needed? > > > > > > Any worrying is done by a ME. > > > > > > 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 Scott, I stil have problems with your statement " The ME is the doer " . I could accept there is a thought saying " It is ME doing " but I cannot see a ME which is doing. An that thought is not the ME and the body/mind is not the ME. But a thought using the word ME and at the same time the body as a referenc for the existence of a ME will produce the illusion of a ME. That I can grasp. In my understanding this using the body as a reference for the ME comes first or better is constatntly going on (even when there is no thought) and so produces the feeling of " I AM " . And this " I AM " is an íllsion, an artefact. Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Werner, > > > > Could you maybe explain what for you is the difference between a ME > > and a me ? I don't quite get it ... > > > I always capitalize ME, to mean the mind / body and / or ego that > *thinks of and about itself* > > Below I wrote 'I am a me?' because I didn't understand Anders answer, > see in that section below. > > > > You wrote for example " And worrying is done by a ME " - that I can > > understand. But " The ME is the doer " , doesn't make sense for me. > > > By the ME is the doer I mean the mind / body and ego that thinks, > moves, behaves and does things. > > > > > Shouldn't it be written " The ME is the illusionary doer " ? > > > You could write it a number of ways depending on *your* understanding > and how you use terms. > > The ME is the doer, there is not other that can DO. > > The ME as a mind / body ego is not an illusionary doer, it is > illusionary in that it believes *itself* to be the Self. > > This illusionary ME is what searches for realization. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > If something is done it is a ME that is DOing. > > > > > What would the *state* be OF? > > > > > > > > Doing is happening. It is all happening automatically. > > > > > > > > > Yes, as a whole of *interelatedness*. > > > > > > > > > > > >What are the benefits of being a nondoer? A > > > > > > nondoer, that sounds like a zombie! :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any benefit could only be TO a ME > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. I am. > > > > > > > > > I am a me? > > > > > > > > > > > The whole doing is the doing of individuals as an inter- > related > > > > whole. > > > > > > > > The inter-related whole is the doer of all individuals> > > > > > > > > > The whole cannot DO. > > > > > > > > > >The ego > > > > thinks the individual is a doer.> > > > > > > > > > The ME is the doer. > > > > > > > > > >The Sage knows that Totality is the > > > > only doer> > > > > > > > > > Totality can't DO. > > > > > > > > > >At least if we should believe what some Sages say> > > > > > > > > > If a Sage told you to stick your head in a fire... > > > > > > What is the difference between a sage and a hotdog vendor? > > > > > > > > > > > Any doing is to become one with time since actions and change > > are > > > > > times arrows, time itself. > > > > > As a reflected ME we can't but not DO. > > > > > > > > Doing happens, yes, but is worrying about a future really > needed? > > > > > > > > > Any worrying is done by a ME. > > > > > > > > > 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 Werner, <I stil have problems with your statement " The ME is the doer " . I could accept there is a thought saying " It is ME doing " > The ME is what is thinking about this material, the thing that is considering. The ME is the whole bundle of mind / body that believes *itself* to be so. >but I cannot see a ME which is doing.> The mind / body ego is the ME and it is the only thing that can DO. The thing that says it cannot see is *itself* the ME. <An that thought is not the ME and the body/mind is not the ME.> It's the other way around. The mind / body and it's thinking is the ME. Or maybe you are meaning that the ME is *I* or we are using the term ME differently. <But a thought using the word ME and at the same time the body as a referenc for the existence of a ME will produce the illusion of a ME. That I can grasp.>> Yes, amongst other things <In my understanding this using the body as a reference for the ME comes first or better is constatntly going on (even when there is no thought) and so produces the feeling of " I AM " > But WHO is it that uses the body as a reference but a ME. <And this " I AM " is an ú‰lsion, an artefact.> This 'I AM' is the same for 'our purposes' as 'this tomato'. The thought 'I AM' is a thinking ME. 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 too, Scott, Slowly by slowly Í get the impression that the ME for you is the Self, God, Atman/Brahman, Tao, Christ's father, etc - or am I wrong ? If that is true, I must admit: Sorry, here I no longer can follow you because it will open the door to all kinds of misunderstanding. As I can see your point is: There is only the Self, everything is the Self, there is nothing but the Self. Scott, I am not interested in the Self or God or whatever one will name it. Maybe that's why I can't meet you. That does not mean that I deny the possibility to experience the untity of all. But you know: The wish is the father of illusion. Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Werner, > > <I stil have problems with your statement " The ME is the doer " . > I could accept there is a thought saying " It is ME doing " > > > > The ME is what is thinking about this material, the thing that is > considering. > > The ME is the whole bundle of mind / body that believes *itself* to > be so. > > > > >but I > cannot see a ME which is doing.> > > > The mind / body ego is the ME and it is the only thing that can DO. > The thing that says it cannot see is *itself* the ME. > > > <An that thought is not the ME and the > body/mind is not the ME.> > > > It's the other way around. > > The mind / body and it's thinking is the ME. > > Or maybe you are meaning that the ME is *I* or we are using the term > ME differently. > > > > <But a thought using the word ME and at the > same time the body as a referenc for the existence of a ME will > produce the illusion of a ME. That I can grasp.>> > > > Yes, amongst other things > > > <In my understanding this using the body as a reference for the ME > comes first or better is constatntly going on (even when there is no > thought) and so produces the feeling of " I AM " > > > > But WHO is it that uses the body as a reference but a ME. > > > <And this " I AM " is an ú‰lsion, an artefact.> > > > This 'I AM' is the same for 'our purposes' as 'this tomato'. > > The thought 'I AM' is a thinking ME. > > > 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 Werner, > Slowly by slowly Í get the impression that the ME for you is the > Self, God, Atman/Brahman, Tao, Christ's father, etc - or am I wrong ? No, this is not what I meant by ME. Looks like we think of the definition of ME differently. I mean the mind / body ego by ME and not the Self, Atman, God etc. > If that is true, I must admit: Sorry, here I no longer can follow you > because it will open the door to all kinds of misunderstanding. Yes. > There is only the Self, everything is the Self, there is nothing but > the Self. > Scott, I am not interested in the Self or God or whatever one will > name it. Maybe that's why I can't meet you. It doesn't matter what name you use. What do you mean by not interested? > That does not mean that I deny the possibility to experience the > untity of all. But you know: The wish is the father of illusion. Who wishes for what? Kind Regards, Scott. > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > Hi again Werner, > > > > <I stil have problems with your statement " The ME is the doer " . > > I could accept there is a thought saying " It is ME doing " > > > > > > > The ME is what is thinking about this material, the thing that is > > considering. > > > > The ME is the whole bundle of mind / body that believes *itself* to > > be so. > > > > > > > > >but I > > cannot see a ME which is doing.> > > > > > > The mind / body ego is the ME and it is the only thing that can DO. > > The thing that says it cannot see is *itself* the ME. > > > > > > <An that thought is not the ME and the > > body/mind is not the ME.> > > > > > > It's the other way around. > > > > The mind / body and it's thinking is the ME. > > > > Or maybe you are meaning that the ME is *I* or we are using the > term > > ME differently. > > > > > > > > <But a thought using the word ME and at the > > same time the body as a referenc for the existence of a ME will > > produce the illusion of a ME. That I can grasp.>> > > > > > > Yes, amongst other things > > > > > > <In my understanding this using the body as a reference for the ME > > comes first or better is constatntly going on (even when there is no > > thought) and so produces the feeling of " I AM " > > > > > > > But WHO is it that uses the body as a reference but a ME. > > > > > > <And this " I AM " is an ú‰lsion, an artefact.> > > > > > > This 'I AM' is the same for 'our purposes' as 'this tomato'. > > > > The thought 'I AM' is a thinking ME. > > > > > > 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, > > > > > If something is done it is a ME that is DOing. > > > What would the *state* be OF? > > > > Doing is happening. It is all happening automatically. > > > Yes, as a whole of *interelatedness*. > > > > > >What are the benefits of being a nondoer? A > > > > nondoer, that sounds like a zombie! :-) > > > > > > > > > Any benefit could only be TO a ME > > > > Yes, of course. I am. > > > I am a me? Sure, you are everything you experience. :-) > > > > > The whole doing is the doing of individuals as an inter-related > > whole. > > > > The inter-related whole is the doer of all individuals> > > > The whole cannot DO. I think the whole is like a mandelbrot set already complete and awareness is zooming into this complex fractal all the time. So there is no real doing going on, only a zooming in going on. http://www.thorsen.priv.no/services/mandelbrot/ http://www.users.nac.net/thegangof4/blackSaturn/mandelbrot/MandelbrotS etExplorer.htm The mandelbrot set is alread complete, but can zoom in, and zoom in into it and the complexity goes on and on... Only todays computers set a limit because of limited precision in the calculations. > > > >The ego > > thinks the individual is a doer.> > > > The ME is the doer. > > > >The Sage knows that Totality is the > > only doer> > > > Totality can't DO. Totality is One happening. > > > >At least if we should believe what some Sages say> > > > If a Sage told you to stick your head in a fire... > > What is the difference between a sage and a hotdog vendor? A Sage knows that he or she is not the doer. Not as a mere intellectual knowledge, but as a truth for that Sage. I think what they say is the truth. > > > > > Any doing is to become one with time since actions and change are > > > times arrows, time itself. > > > As a reflected ME we can't but not DO. > > > > Doing happens, yes, but is worrying about a future really needed? > > > Any worrying is done by a ME. When that ME comes to know that separate doing and worrying are illusions, then there will be peace for that ME. :-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. 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, > > > > Any benefit could only be TO a ME > > > > > > Yes, of course. I am. > > > > > > I am a me? > > Sure, you are everything you experience. :-) No, I am not everything I experience. > > The ME is the doer. > > > > > > >The Sage knows that Totality is the > > > only doer> > > > > > > Totality can't DO. > > Totality is One happening. Totality is a self-existent whole. > > >At least if we should believe what some Sages say> > > > > > > If a Sage told you to stick your head in a fire... > > > > What is the difference between a sage and a hotdog vendor? > > A Sage knows that he or she is not the doer. Not as a mere > intellectual knowledge, but as a truth for that Sage. I think what > they say is the truth. A sage is another ME like 'you'. > > > Doing happens, yes, but is worrying about a future really needed? > > > > > > Any worrying is done by a ME. > > When that ME comes to know that separate doing and worrying are > illusions, then there will be peace for that ME. :-) The ME is the worriER and the doER. 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, > > > > > > > Any benefit could only be TO a ME > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. I am. > > > > > > > > > I am a me? > > > > Sure, you are everything you experience. :-) > > > No, I am not everything I experience. Depends on how you define yourself. > > > > > The ME is the doer. > > > > > > > > > >The Sage knows that Totality is the > > > > only doer> > > > > > > > > > Totality can't DO. > > > > Totality is One happening. > > > Totality is a self-existent whole. > > > > > >At least if we should believe what some Sages say> > > > > > > > > > If a Sage told you to stick your head in a fire... > > > > > > What is the difference between a sage and a hotdog vendor? > > > > A Sage knows that he or she is not the doer. Not as a mere > > intellectual knowledge, but as a truth for that Sage. I think what > > they say is the truth. > > > A sage is another ME like 'you'. Maybe it is not possible to say that a sage or anyone is a separate object. Maybe it is not possible to say that a human being is something other than as an appearance not separated from the whole! Maybe the sage knows this while I still cling onto the illusion of a separate 'me'. > > > > > > Doing happens, yes, but is worrying about a future really > needed? > > > > > > > > > Any worrying is done by a ME. > > > > When that ME comes to know that separate doing and worrying are > > illusions, then there will be peace for that ME. :-) > > > The ME is the worriER and the doER. Wouldn't be better to say that the ME is the processes of worrying and doing? /AL > > > 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 Hi again, > > Sure, you are everything you experience. :-) > > > No, I am not everything I experience. <Depends on how you define yourself.> Any thought, any definition is defined *by* a ME. > A sage is another ME like 'you'. <Maybe it is not possible to say that a sage or anyone is a separate object.> We can say that a 'sage' is a seperate object from a person or a tree. <,Maybe it is not possible to say that a human being is something other than as an appearance not separated from the whole! > No-thing is seperate from the whole. Everything is 'in' it. <Maybe the sage knows this while I still cling onto the illusion of a separate 'me'.> It is a ME that clings. > The ME is the worriER and the doER. <Wouldn't be better to say that the ME is the processes of worrying and doing?> The ''processes'' of worrying and doing are a part of what a ME *is*. But worrying and doing cannot happen 'by themselves'. It takes a ME, which is the mind / body ego. Kind Regards, Scott. New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages! 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, > > > > > Sure, you are everything you experience. :-) > > > > > > No, I am not everything I experience. > > <Depends on how you define yourself.> > > Any thought, any definition is defined *by* a ME. You see objects where no objects are. The is no ME. There are no objects. There is the _appearance_ of objects, but who want's to cling to images? > > > > A sage is another ME like 'you'. > > <Maybe it is not possible to say that a sage or anyone is a separate > object.> > > We can say that a 'sage' is a seperate object from a person or a tree. No measurable 'thing' has any real existence, including the sage or a tree. > > > > <,Maybe it is not possible to say that a human being is > something other than as an appearance not separated from the whole! > > > No-thing is seperate from the whole. > > Everything is 'in' it. > > > <Maybe the sage knows this while I still cling onto the illusion of a > separate 'me'.> > > It is a ME that clings. Yes, the separate 'me' as an object is an idea of being a separate entity, but is there a ME other that this idea of being a separate entity? > > > > The ME is the worriER and the doER. > > <Wouldn't be better to say that the ME is the processes of worrying > and doing?> > > The ''processes'' of worrying and doing are a part of what a ME *is*. But to say that a ME is doER is just to put a label on a processes and calling it a 'thing'. Thus, the ME you talk about is nothing but a label on processes. > > But worrying and doing cannot happen 'by themselves'. > > It takes a ME, which is the mind / body ego. I would say that the mind/body is a process and not a thing, not a separate ME. /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > > > New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Hi again, > > Any thought, any definition is defined *by* a ME. > > You see objects where no objects are. The is no ME. There are no > objects. There is the _appearance_ of objects, but who want's to > cling to images? There is a ME, and the ME is the thing that denies it's own existence also. It takes a ME. There are objects, every phenomenal thing is an appearance. Any clinging is done by a ME. > > > A sage is another ME like 'you'. > > > > <Maybe it is not possible to say that a sage or anyone is a > separate > > object.> > > > > We can say that a 'sage' is a seperate object from a person or a > tree. > > No measurable 'thing' has any real existence, including the sage or a > tree. Yes, no-thing has any inherently real of-itself existence. > > <Maybe the sage knows this while I still cling onto the illusion of > a > > separate 'me'.> > > > > It is a ME that clings. > > Yes, the separate 'me' as an object is an idea of being a separate > entity, but is there a ME other that this idea of being a separate > entity? The idea is also a part of what makes a ME a ME, but the idea itself is not the mind / body ego / personal self. > > The ''processes'' of worrying and doing are a part of what a ME > *is*. > > But to say that a ME is doER is just to put a label on a processes > and calling it a 'thing'. Thus, the ME you talk about is nothing but > a label on processes. The ME includes what you call processes but these are not the ME / mind / body. Thoughts are ideas are not possible without the interaction of the mind body personal self. What we call ME is not simply a label or a label of an idea. > > But worrying and doing cannot happen 'by themselves'. > > > > It takes a ME, which is the mind / body ego. > > I would say that the mind/body is a process and not a thing, not a > separate ME. *The thing that makes a ME a ME is what makes ME a seperate thing* Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > Any thought, any definition is defined *by* a ME. > > > > You see objects where no objects are. The is no ME. There are no > > objects. There is the _appearance_ of objects, but who want's to > > cling to images? > > > There is a ME, and the ME is the thing that denies it's own existence > also. It takes a ME. > > There are objects, every phenomenal thing is an appearance. > Any clinging is done by a ME. > > > > > > A sage is another ME like 'you'. > > > > > > <Maybe it is not possible to say that a sage or anyone is a > > separate > > > object.> > > > > > > We can say that a 'sage' is a seperate object from a person or a > > tree. > > > > No measurable 'thing' has any real existence, including the sage or > a > > tree. > > Yes, no-thing has any inherently real of-itself existence. > > > > > <Maybe the sage knows this while I still cling onto the illusion > of > > a > > > separate 'me'.> > > > > > > It is a ME that clings. > > > > Yes, the separate 'me' as an object is an idea of being a separate > > entity, but is there a ME other that this idea of being a separate > > entity? > > > The idea is also a part of what makes a ME a ME, but the idea itself > is not the mind / body ego / personal self. > > > > > The ''processes'' of worrying and doing are a part of what a ME > > *is*. > > > > But to say that a ME is doER is just to put a label on a processes > > and calling it a 'thing'. Thus, the ME you talk about is nothing > but > > a label on processes. > > > The ME includes what you call processes but these are not the ME / > mind / body. Thoughts are ideas are not possible without the > interaction of the mind body personal self. > What we call ME is not simply a label or a label of an idea. > > > > > But worrying and doing cannot happen 'by themselves'. > > > > > > It takes a ME, which is the mind / body ego. > > > > I would say that the mind/body is a process and not a thing, not a > > separate ME. > > > *The thing that makes a ME a ME is what makes ME a seperate thing* > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Do you mean by ME the ego? Ramesh Balsekar defines the ego as the sense of a separate me identified with a name and form and with sense of personal doership. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Hi again, > Do you mean by ME the ego? ME is the mind / body ego that *believes itself to be so* It includes all the 'things' that go to make it a separate entity necessary to interact with the world and other persons. >Ramesh Balsekar defines the ego as the > sense of a separate me identified with a name and form and with sense > of personal doership. It is a ME including an ego that has made that definition. Who or what *is* 'Ramesh Balsekar'? Don't worry about what Ramesh Balsekar says. If Ramesh Balsekar told you to jump off the golden gate bridge... Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > Do you mean by ME the ego? > > > ME is the mind / body ego that *believes itself to be so* > > It includes all the 'things' that go to make it a separate entity > necessary to interact with the world and other persons. > > > >Ramesh Balsekar defines the ego as the > > sense of a separate me identified with a name and form and with > sense > > of personal doership. > > > It is a ME including an ego that has made that definition. > > Who or what *is* 'Ramesh Balsekar'? > > Don't worry about what Ramesh Balsekar says. > > If Ramesh Balsekar told you to jump off the golden gate bridge... > > Ramesh Balsekar is a human body/mind mechanism, a created object without a sense of personal doership, according to himself. :-) So he is a ME without the experience of being a doer. /AL > > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Hi again, > Ramesh Balsekar is a human body/mind mechanism, a created object > without a sense of personal doership, according to himself.> According to himself? :-) So he > is a ME without the experience of being a doer. HE *is* the ME that does and is the DOer. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > Ramesh Balsekar is a human body/mind mechanism, a created object > > without a sense of personal doership, according to himself.> > > > According to himself? Yes, he sees separation and even himself as separate but only as an appearance. > > > :-) So he > > is a ME without the experience of being a doer. > > > HE *is* the ME that does and is the DOer. The human body/mind mechanism is like a puppet on strings. Neither the human being nor the puppet are doers, they are being _done_ according to many sages. A robot is also a doer, in that sense there is doing going on, but what I mean by a doer is that a separate entity is its own cause for the doing. /AL > > > 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.