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? > > Yes, he sees separation and even himself as separate but only as an > appearance. No, he does not. > > :-) 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> No, it isn't. >Neither > the human being nor the puppet are doers> The ME which includes what we think when we think 'human being' is the DOer. >they are being _done_ > according to many sages> Don't believe everything you read written by '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. A robot cannot think and make decisions. A ME is responsible for the choices and decisions it makes and any and all DOing. 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. > > > No, he does not. That's what he said how a sage sees the world, but maybe he didn't mean himself. > > > > > > > :-) 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> > > > No, it isn't. Of course, there is a different level of complexity involved between a puppet and and human body/mind mechanism, but in essence everything just happens and that is how I feel reality functions. So the puppet and the human body/mind is exactly the same pattern unfolding. There is only one pattern unfolding. There is no doing, creation or destruction going on. There is 'only' an automatic unfolding pattern going on. I am not including awareness here. The puppet is not self- aware. The human _being_ is self-aware. " Discover all that you are not--body, feelings, thoughts, time, space, this or that--nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. " -- Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > >Neither > > the human being nor the puppet are doers> > > > The ME which includes what we think when we think 'human being' is > the DOer. A doer implies a cause and effect relationship, and I believe that the now is what causes the past, _all_ of the past as a _single_ unit not separated from the now. Has a ME created _all_ of the past from this moment to the beginning of the Big Bang? > > > > >they are being _done_ > > according to many sages> > > > Don't believe everything you read written by '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. > > > A robot cannot think and make decisions. > > A ME is responsible for the choices and decisions it makes and any > and all DOing. " The human being is a mechanism, and in that mechanism there is a mechanism which prevents the human mechanism from seeing its mechanistic nature. " -- Jon Franklin (not a direct quote) /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, > > > Yes, he sees separation and even himself as separate but only as > an > > > appearance. > > > > > > No, he does not. > > That's what he said how a sage sees the world, but maybe he didn't > mean himself. A sage is a ME. > Of course, there is a different level of complexity involved between > a puppet and and human body/mind mechanism, but in essence everything > just happens and that is how I feel reality functions> Everything does happen automatically as an inter-relationship as a whole. So the puppet > and the human body/mind is exactly the same pattern unfolding. There > is only one pattern unfolding> Yes, the whole is the whole 'unfolding'. There is no doing, creation or > destruction going on. There is 'only' an automatic unfolding pattern > going on. I am not including awareness here. The puppet is not self- > aware. The human _being_ is self-aware> The human being is not self-aware. > A doer implies a cause and effect relationship, and I believe that > the now is what causes the past, _all_ of the past as a _single_ unit > not separated from the now. < Now does not cause the past, the past is a 'part' of the one, all of time now. <Has a ME created _all_ of the past from > this moment to the beginning of the Big Bang? Everything, every single phenomenon in the whole, subtle or gross 'creates time' ( the past ), a ME is one of the infinitude. > > A ME is responsible for the choices and decisions it makes and any > > and all DOing. > > " The human being is a mechanism, and in that mechanism there is a > mechanism which prevents the human mechanism from seeing its > mechanistic nature. " -- Jon Franklin (not a direct quote) " The human being is not a mechanism, there is not a mechanism which prevents the human from seeing its non-mechanistic nature. " -- Scott Andersen Don't believe everything you read, including what I say Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > Yes, he sees separation and even himself as separate but only > as > > an > > > > appearance. > > > > > > > > > No, he does not. > > > > That's what he said how a sage sees the world, but maybe he didn't > > mean himself. > > > A sage is a ME. > > > > Of course, there is a different level of complexity involved > between > > a puppet and and human body/mind mechanism, but in essence > everything > > just happens and that is how I feel reality functions> > > > Everything does happen automatically as an inter-relationship as a > whole. > > > So the puppet > > and the human body/mind is exactly the same pattern unfolding. > There > > is only one pattern unfolding> > > > Yes, the whole is the whole 'unfolding'. > > > There is no doing, creation or > > destruction going on. There is 'only' an automatic unfolding > pattern > > going on. I am not including awareness here. The puppet is not self- > > aware. The human _being_ is self-aware> > > > The human being is not self-aware. The sense of " I exist " is what I mean by being self-aware. Or we could say the sense of " something exists " if we don't want to talk about an " I " . You can deny that God exists, but can you deny that there is something going on? > > > > A doer implies a cause and effect relationship, and I believe that > > the now is what causes the past, _all_ of the past as a _single_ > unit > > not separated from the now. < > > > Now does not cause the past, the past is a 'part' of the one, all of > time now. Yes, the word 'cause' often leads one to the idea that there is some creation going on. I see the world as an infinite DVD record being played. The DVD is already complete and just *is*. So there is no real cause to be found anywhere. > > > <Has a ME created _all_ of the past from > > this moment to the beginning of the Big Bang? > > > Everything, every single phenomenon in the whole, subtle or > gross 'creates time' ( the past ), a ME is one of the infinitude. Yes, but I would not use the word 'create', but rather the word 'is'. > > > > > A ME is responsible for the choices and decisions it makes and > any > > > and all DOing. > > > > " The human being is a mechanism, and in that mechanism there is a > > mechanism which prevents the human mechanism from seeing its > > mechanistic nature. " -- Jon Franklin (not a direct quote) > > " The human being is not a mechanism, there is not a > mechanism which prevents the human from seeing its > non-mechanistic nature. " -- Scott Andersen > > Don't believe everything you read, including what I say I would say that: " The human being is just like a rock or a tree a formation of energy, and energy is just a net of relationships and not a 'thing' in itself, and it is the energy that 'creates' 'free will' and not the other way around probably. " . :-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Hello, > > The human being is not self-aware. > > The sense of " I exist " is what I mean by being self-aware. Or we > could say the sense of " something exists " if we don't want to talk > about an " I " . You can deny that God exists, but can you deny that > there is something going on? Any denial or assertion is by a ME. Who or what is aware? > Yes, the word 'cause' often leads one to the idea that there is some > creation going on. I see the world as an infinite DVD record being > played. The DVD is already complete and just *is*. So there is no > real cause to be found anywhere. Cause and effect are a single continuum. A ME or mind divides this continuum. > > Everything, every single phenomenon in the whole, subtle or > > gross 'creates time' ( the past ), a ME is one of the infinitude. > > Yes, but I would not use the word 'create', but rather the word 'is'. The phenomenon is not time. > I would say that: " The human being is just like a rock or a tree a > formation of energy, and energy is just a net of relationships and > not a 'thing' in itself, and it is the energy that 'creates' 'free > will' and not the other way around probably. " . :-) Yes, nothing is a thing in itself as self existent, the only self existent 'thing' is the self existent whole. Free will uprises in the whole 'before time' ( or before 'time being created' ) it uprises as an event, and the *functioning* of the whole and the human will are not in anyway seperate, yet there is absolutely no contradiction where one can be denied to the exclusion of the other. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > The human being is not self-aware. > > > > The sense of " I exist " is what I mean by being self-aware. Or we > > could say the sense of " something exists " if we don't want to talk > > about an " I " . You can deny that God exists, but can you deny that > > there is something going on? > > > Any denial or assertion is by a ME. > > Who or what is aware? When I said human being, I meant all that one experience, and that includes the state of being self-aware. > > > > Yes, the word 'cause' often leads one to the idea that there is > some > > creation going on. I see the world as an infinite DVD record being > > played. The DVD is already complete and just *is*. So there is no > > real cause to be found anywhere. > > > Cause and effect are a single continuum. > A ME or mind divides this continuum. Yes, but that is an automatic happening as I see it, and not a ME doing something out of own volition. > > > > > Everything, every single phenomenon in the whole, subtle or > > > gross 'creates time' ( the past ), a ME is one of the infinitude. > > > > Yes, but I would not use the word 'create', but rather the > word 'is'. > > > The phenomenon is not time. What you call phenomenon I may call information. All information is already there, and it is awareness 'lightening' up a path in this static information that manifests the world and time passing. > > > > I would say that: " The human being is just like a rock or a tree a > > formation of energy, and energy is just a net of relationships and > > not a 'thing' in itself, and it is the energy that 'creates' 'free > > will' and not the other way around probably. " . :-) > > > Yes, nothing is a thing in itself as self existent, the only self > existent 'thing' is the self existent whole. > > Free will uprises in the whole 'before time' ( or before 'time being > created' ) it uprises as an event, and the *functioning* of the whole > and the human will are not in anyway seperate, yet there is > absolutely no contradiction where one can be denied to the exclusion > of the other. If we drop a drop of water on slooping plane it will move downwards maybe not in a stright line, but in a complex pattern going left and right. The drop can be said to have free will, but in fact it has not. Similarly, all the neurons in the human brain can send signals in different directions and with interactions in a complex pattern. A neuron can be said to have free will, but in fact it has not. The human thought-system is a very complex system so it is easy to get the belief that there is actually free will, when in fact there is no free will at all going on. I may be wrong about this idea about free will. Maybe there is such thing as an individual free will in the sense that real choices are being made. Maybe one day the intellect/science will find out the thruth about free will. But maybe what we then think of as the truth is not the truth a century later on. Today we don't think that the earth is the center of the universe, but in the next century we may find that the earth is indeed the center of the universe! ;-) /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Hi again, > > Any denial or assertion is by a ME. > > > > Who or what is aware? > > When I said human being, I meant all that one experience, and that > includes the state of being self-aware. No, it is the other way around The ( state of ) being aware ( or more correctly awareness ) includes the 'experience' of being a human being. > > Cause and effect are a single continuum. > > A ME or mind divides this continuum. > > Yes, but that is an automatic happening as I see it, and not a ME > doing something out of own volition. The ME always DOES. > > The phenomenon is not time. > > What you call phenomenon I may call information. All information is > already there, and it is awareness 'lightening' up a path in this > static information that manifests the world and time passing. The only thing that makes time 'pass' is change. The world is never static. > > If we drop a drop of water on slooping plane it will move downwards > maybe not in a stright line, but in a complex pattern going left and > right. The drop can be said to have free will, but in fact it has > not. A raindrop cannot be said to have free will. The > human thought-system is a very complex system so it is easy to get > the belief that there is actually free will, when in fact there is no > free will at all going on. Human beings are creatures capable of decision and willing. > I may be wrong about this idea about free will. Maybe there is such > thing as an individual free will in the sense that real choices are > being made. The problem is trying to fit free will to a model that exlcudes either free will or unity functioning when in fact these two are one without any contradiction whatsoever, isn't it a beautiful mystery? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > Any denial or assertion is by a ME. > > > > > > Who or what is aware? > > > > When I said human being, I meant all that one experience, and that > > includes the state of being self-aware. > > > No, it is the other way around > > The ( state of ) being aware ( or more correctly awareness ) includes > the 'experience' of being a human being. And the world may be in you and not you in the world. Think about this! ;-) > > > > > Cause and effect are a single continuum. > > > A ME or mind divides this continuum. > > > > Yes, but that is an automatic happening as I see it, and not a ME > > doing something out of own volition. > > > The ME always DOES. Sound like the ME is a synonym for the 'Ghost in the machine'. When you find that ghost, please show it to me. :-) > > > > > The phenomenon is not time. > > > > What you call phenomenon I may call information. All information is > > already there, and it is awareness 'lightening' up a path in this > > static information that manifests the world and time passing. > > > The only thing that makes time 'pass' is change. > The world is never static. But the concept " 2 + 2 = 4 " is static! And your idea about a 'ME' is static (or do you mold/shape/modify/change/alter this concept of a 'ME' to fit reality if needed if change demands it?) > > > > > If we drop a drop of water on slooping plane it will move downwards > > maybe not in a stright line, but in a complex pattern going left > and > > right. The drop can be said to have free will, but in fact it has > > not. > > > A raindrop cannot be said to have free will. > > > The > > human thought-system is a very complex system so it is easy to get > > the belief that there is actually free will, when in fact there is > no > > free will at all going on. > > > Human beings are creatures capable of decision and willing. What I am saying is that decision and willing are in essence exactly the same natural laws being played out automatically as when a drop of water finds its way down a slope. You may think that you are able to alter the course of the universe, but are you sure about this? If not, then you cannot say that you really have free will. > > > > > I may be wrong about this idea about free will. Maybe there is such > > thing as an individual free will in the sense that real choices are > > being made. > > > The problem is trying to fit free will to a model that exlcudes > either free will or unity functioning when in fact these two are one > without any contradiction whatsoever, isn't it a beautiful mystery? I don't believe there is such thing as free will. When observing my own thoughts then I cannot find any thought that 'I' have created. It is more like the 'I' itself is just a thought/feeling. Even though the 'I' thought is very persistent, I ('I') cannot say that is permanent or an entity of its own. My intellect including the 'I' thought seems to be a separate machine, but in reality it is just a part of the whole process of the human body/mind mechanism. Who wants to have free will? Find the one who wants free will. And when you find it, then what is it? I can tell you right now that what you will find as an 'entity' wanting free will is a thought/feeling and not a separate entity at all. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Hi, > > No, it is the other way around > > > > The ( state of ) being aware ( or more correctly awareness ) > includes > > the 'experience' of being a human being. > > And the world may be in you and not you in the world. Think about > this! ;-) No, the world is not in ME. The world is not in anything. You cannot think about this because that thinking is by a ME and also a part of the apparent phenomenon. > > The ME always DOES. > > Sound like the ME is a synonym for the 'Ghost in the machine'. When > you find that ghost, please show it to me. :-) It *took* a ME to write the above. > > The only thing that makes time 'pass' is change. > > The world is never static. > > But the concept " 2 + 2 = 4 " is static!> 2 + 2 doesn't make time pass. And your idea about a 'ME' is > static (or do you mold/shape/modify/change/alter this concept of > a 'ME' to fit reality if needed if change demands it?) I use 'ME' to describe the mind / body ego that thinks of itself as such. > > Human beings are creatures capable of decision and willing. > > What I am saying is that decision and willing are in essence exactly > the same natural laws being played out automatically as when a drop > of water finds its way down a slope. Everything is happening 'automatically' yes and human will is a part of that happening as an arising within the whole. <You may think that you are able > to alter the course of the universe, but are you sure about this? Human will and mentation is part of what does alter the course of the universe. These are not two things. > I don't believe there is such thing as free will. When observing my > own thoughts then I cannot find any thought that 'I' have created. Are you looking for an 'I' thought? It > is more like the 'I' itself is just a thought/feeling> What is *I*? > The I that you are *not* *looking for*? Even though > the 'I' thought is very persistent> What I thought? I ('I') cannot say that is > permanent or an entity of its own> '*I* cannot say if the I thought is permanent'??? My intellect including the 'I' > thought seems to be a separate machine> The intellect does not include *I*. > Who wants to have free will? A ME that fears the loss of free will. Find the one who wants free will. And > when you find it, then what is it? I can tell you right now that what > you will find as an 'entity' wanting free will is a thought/feeling > and not a separate entity at all. There is a seperate entity and that is the entity that believes itself to be so, a ME that thinks of itself as a ME. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > No, it is the other way around > > > > > > The ( state of ) being aware ( or more correctly awareness ) > > includes > > > the 'experience' of being a human being. > > > > And the world may be in you and not you in the world. Think about > > this! ;-) > > > No, the world is not in ME. > > The world is not in anything. > > You cannot think about this because that thinking is by a ME and also > a part of the apparent phenomenon. Not in your ME, in your awareness! > > > > > > The ME always DOES. > > > > Sound like the ME is a synonym for the 'Ghost in the machine'. When > > you find that ghost, please show it to me. :-) > > > It *took* a ME to write the above. Yes, it takes a body and a mind to write it, but I could have written this in my sleep, I really could! So there is no concious me needed for 'doing' things. > > > > > The only thing that makes time 'pass' is change. > > > The world is never static. > > > > But the concept " 2 + 2 = 4 " is static!> > > > 2 + 2 doesn't make time pass. But 2 + 2 is a static part of the world. You said that the world is never static. > > > And your idea about a 'ME' is > > static (or do you mold/shape/modify/change/alter this concept of > > a 'ME' to fit reality if needed if change demands it?) > > > I use 'ME' to describe the mind / body ego that thinks of itself as > such. When the ME is not needed any longer, then there is Choiceless Awareness? > > > > > Human beings are creatures capable of decision and willing. > > > > What I am saying is that decision and willing are in essence > exactly > > the same natural laws being played out automatically as when a drop > > of water finds its way down a slope. > > > Everything is happening 'automatically' yes and human will is a part > of that happening as an arising within the whole. > > > <You may think that you are able > > to alter the course of the universe, but are you sure about this? > > > Human will and mentation is part of what does alter the course of the > universe. These are not two things. Human will is only an add-on feeling. The will itself doesn't accomplish anything. I can brush my teeth I be lost in thoughs, and the brushing still goes on, without a ME being aware of it or in any way making any choices. Then my will can become active again and my thoughts are now controlling the brushing. But all that has happened is a shift of awareness, from daydreaming to focusing on the brushing. > > > > I don't believe there is such thing as free will. When observing my > > own thoughts then I cannot find any thought that 'I' have created. > > > Are you looking for an 'I' thought? The 'I' thought is the ME you talk about. So the 'I' is trying to look at the 'I', to understand itself and then it finds that it itself is just a thought. > > > It > > is more like the 'I' itself is just a thought/feeling> > > > What is *I*? > The I that you are *not* *looking for*? The 'I' is the ME. > > > > Even though > > the 'I' thought is very persistent> > > > What I thought? When we think " I am thinking " , then the I thought is there. In every form of thinking, the root I-thought is there. (Unless you are a sage perhaps.) > > > I ('I') cannot say that is > > permanent or an entity of its own> > > > '*I* cannot say if the I thought is permanent'??? The I-thought can be recognized. What you have recognized as a 'ME' is pretty much the same as the I-thought. But the intellect which has this I-thought as base cannot ever know if its base is permanent or not. > > > My intellect including the 'I' > > thought seems to be a separate machine> > > > The intellect does not include *I*. In the intellect, in every form of thinking, there is an I-thought at the root where other thoughts are being reflected. This whole construct with I-thought and reflected thoughts and feelings is the ME. Or have I not got your definition of a ME correct? > > > > Who wants to have free will? > > > A ME that fears the loss of free will. The intellect with all its thoughts and feelings, yes. > > > Find the one who wants free will. And > > when you find it, then what is it? > I can tell you right now that what > > you will find as an 'entity' wanting free will is a thought/feeling > > and not a separate entity at all. > > > There is a seperate entity and that is the entity that believes > itself to be so, a ME that thinks of itself as a ME. There is the appearance of a separate entity, and the appearance is, but a mirage also is. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Hi, > > You cannot think about this because that thinking is by a ME and > also > > a part of the apparent phenomenon. > > > Not in your ME, in your awareness! There is no my ME or MY awareness. > > It *took* a ME to write the above. > > Yes, it takes a body and a mind to write it, but I could have written > this in my sleep, I really could!> No, replying to these emails is not possible during sleep, it requires a thinking mind. > > 2 + 2 doesn't make time pass. > > But 2 + 2 is a static part of the world. You said that the world is > never static. The *world* is never static. > When the ME is not needed any longer, then there is Choiceless > Awareness? So long as there is a human being a ME is most definitely *needed*, needed is not the right word to use. As long as there is a human being there IS a ME. > Human will is only an add-on feeling. The will itself doesn't > accomplish anything> The will is what 'accomplishes', we could not BE what we are without a will. I can brush my teeth I be lost in thoughs, and > the brushing still goes on, without a ME being aware of it or in any > way making any choices> You do not need to make choices when brushing your teeth. Same as when you are playing with a yo-yo. > > Are you looking for an 'I' thought? > > The 'I' thought is the ME you talk about> No, the ME is not a thought and not an 'I' thought. So the 'I' is trying to > look at the 'I', to understand itself and then it finds that it > itself is just a thought> No, the ME is the only thing that is looking or trying to understand. There is no I or I thought looking or trying to understand. > > It > > > is more like the 'I' itself is just a thought/feeling> > > > > > > What is *I*? > The I that you are *not* *looking for*? > > The 'I' is the ME. No, *I* is not ME. > > Even though > > > the 'I' thought is very persistent> > > > > > > What I thought? > > When we think " I am thinking " , then the I thought is there> It is a ME that thinks I am thinking, there is no I *thought*. >In every > form of thinking, the root I-thought is there. (Unless you are a sage > perhaps.) In every form of thinking there is a ME that thinks of itself as such. > > I ('I') cannot say that is > > > permanent or an entity of its own> > > > > > > '*I* cannot say if the I thought is permanent'??? > > The I-thought can be recognized. What you have recognized as a 'ME' > is pretty much the same as the I-thought. Any thought is a thinking ME not I or I thought. > > The intellect does not include *I*. > > In the intellect, in every form of thinking, there is an I-thought at > the root where other thoughts are being reflected> What 'I thought'? Any thoughts are being thought only by a ME. Is the sense of self a thought? > > > Who wants to have free will? > > > > > > A ME that fears the loss of free will. > > The intellect with all its thoughts and feelings, yes. A ME is more than just thoughts and feelings. It is the personal self. > > There is a seperate entity and that is the entity that believes > > itself to be so, a ME that thinks of itself as a ME. > > There is the appearance of a separate entity, and the appearance is, > but a mirage also is. No, it is real and 'needed' and it is always there even in ''''''enlightened'''''' people. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > You cannot think about this because that thinking is by a ME and > > also > > > a part of the apparent phenomenon. > > > > > > Not in your ME, in your awareness! > > > There is no my ME or MY awareness. Ok, by ME you mean the total human being/beingness. > > > > > It *took* a ME to write the above. > > > > Yes, it takes a body and a mind to write it, but I could have > written > > this in my sleep, I really could!> > > > No, replying to these emails is not possible during sleep, it > requires a thinking mind. There are many things we can do when at the same time the mind is gone in daydreaming. The very advanced processes in the body are going on without we being aware of them or how they should be done. Similarly there may be a state where thinking is going on without we having to be aware of the process of thinking. Osho calls this state intuition, a 'higher' state than thinking. So this is the ME upgraded. In an ordinary human life, it is the intellect who is the master, in intuition the intellect is only a tool. In an ordinary human being thinking goes on and on and on... In intuition the intellect is still and silent when not needed and working when needed. > > > > > 2 + 2 doesn't make time pass. > > > > But 2 + 2 is a static part of the world. You said that the world is > > never static. > > > The *world* is never static. But the concept 2 + 2 is a part of the world. > > > > When the ME is not needed any longer, then there is Choiceless > > Awareness? > > > So long as there is a human being a ME is most definitely *needed*, > needed is not the right word to use. > > As long as there is a human being there IS a ME. I agree that there must be a sense of self, or there would be no experience going on at all. But I think it is a mistake to believe there must be an intellect, a thinking process going on for it to be this sense of self. The thinking process may be more like breathing. We can do conscious breathing and there can be breathing going on without we being consciously aware of it. The mistake, I think, is to believe that thinking must go on all the time, or there would not be a sense of self. > > > > Human will is only an add-on feeling. The will itself doesn't > > accomplish anything> > > > The will is what 'accomplishes', we could not BE what we are without > a will. The will may be needed when it is there, but in a state of choiceless awareness then this will may not be needed. > > > I can brush my teeth I be lost in thoughs, and > > the brushing still goes on, without a ME being aware of it or in > any > > way making any choices> > > > You do not need to make choices when brushing your teeth. Same as > when you are playing with a yo-yo. Maybe we can say this about _all_ situations. When we think we are making choices, then we are making choices, I agree, but in choiceless awareness there is no 'me'. And people who talk about this choiceless awareness say that the state of making choices really was not making any real choices at all. > > > > > Are you looking for an 'I' thought? > > > > The 'I' thought is the ME you talk about> > > > No, the ME is not a thought and not an 'I' thought. > > > So the 'I' is trying to > > look at the 'I', to understand itself and then it finds that it > > itself is just a thought> > > > No, the ME is the only thing that is looking or trying to understand. > There is no I or I thought looking or trying to understand. I would say that it is the intellect who is trying to understand. That waht the intellect is - a thinking-machine. I define the intellect as all thinking going on in a person together with related feelings. > > > > > It > > > > is more like the 'I' itself is just a thought/feeling> > > > > > > > > > What is *I*? > The I that you are *not* *looking for*? > > > > The 'I' is the ME. > > > No, *I* is not ME. > > > > > Even though > > > > the 'I' thought is very persistent> > > > > > > > > > What I thought? > > > > When we think " I am thinking " , then the I thought is there> > > > It is a ME that thinks I am thinking, there is no I *thought*. I should perhaps have used the concept 'intellect' instead of I- thought. The intellect is all thinking going on, for example " I am thinking " is a thought in the intellect. > > > >In every > > form of thinking, the root I-thought is there. (Unless you are a > sage > > perhaps.) > > > In every form of thinking there is a ME that thinks of itself as such. Yes, and I call this part of the ME the intellect. > > > > > I ('I') cannot say that is > > > > permanent or an entity of its own> > > > > > > > > > '*I* cannot say if the I thought is permanent'??? > > > > The I-thought can be recognized. What you have recognized as a 'ME' > > is pretty much the same as the I-thought. > > > Any thought is a thinking ME not I or I thought. > > > > > The intellect does not include *I*. > > > > In the intellect, in every form of thinking, there is an I- thought > at > > the root where other thoughts are being reflected> > > > What 'I thought'? > Any thoughts are being thought only by a ME. > > Is the sense of self a thought? Yes, the ego sense of self is a thought/feeling together with an awareness of that thought/feeling. Awareness and the thought/feeling (thoughts/feelings) are not two, but the thought/feeling of being a self can be probably be removed without of loosing the sense of self. What will then disappear is the sense of " I am so and so " and what will remain is only " I am " . > > > > > > Who wants to have free will? > > > > > > > > > A ME that fears the loss of free will. > > > > The intellect with all its thoughts and feelings, yes. > > > A ME is more than just thoughts and feelings. > It is the personal self. Fears are feelings happenens together with the intellect. The intellect (thinking) and fear go together and feed each other; it's a vicious circle. The intellect lives in a thought-world and this internal world is what makes fear appear. This thought-world is not the real world, only a 'map' of it. A ME may lose interest in this map and then something solid will dawn upon the ME I guess. > > > > > There is a seperate entity and that is the entity that believes > > > itself to be so, a ME that thinks of itself as a ME. > > > > There is the appearance of a separate entity, and the appearance > is, > > but a mirage also is. > > > No, it is real and 'needed' and it is always there even > in ''''''enlightened'''''' people. The separate 'me' is only a part of the internal thought-world, the map of the intellect. When this cloud of separation is removed, then there will be no separation. How could there be separation without the idea/thought/feeling of separation? The intellect thinks that separation must be there and of course it must be there for the intellect to exist as a separate 'me', but the separate 'me' is a mirage. The removal of the separate 'me' is what is called the death of the ego. /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.