Guest guest Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 Hi Anders, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you, I have been away for a week. > > There is no 'my' now. > > Now is above the 'me' and it's perception. > > My now and me are one. :-) There is no 'my now'. > > How is it better to *say* anything? > > For whose benefit? > > The absolute cannot be said to be one. There can only be one as > a " thing " separare from other " things " . One is a way of counting an > object. Absolute existence is not an object because an object only > exists within a relational context. Saying 'not two' is perhaps not > the truth either, but it is at least not stuck in " counting " things. Yes, Being 'comes before' counting > > You cannot grade reality to its realness. > > A thought is 'just as real' as a tree, the gods are just as real as > a > > coffee cup, it is all *real* > > Yes, but there are degrees in relational reality. And there are also > relational truths and relational false statements. All this is Maya > (that which can be measured), but within Maya there are many relative > degrees. Who is it that gives these degrees of truth their definition? And what degree of truth or reality does that thing itself have. If something is real it is real there is no *need* to grade reality TO it's realness. > Sages speak about realizing the timeless Witness. I believe that is a > state of having transcended Maya. Not that one disappears in a cloud > of smoke into Nirvana, but more like being liberated *while* living > in Maya. > Who can be liberated and who disappears? > > Yes, something in and of itself has no independent existence, that > > does not make it empty, it makes it empty OF independent existence. > > I see reality as being a formless ocean, and material objects waves > in this ocean. A wave in a real ocean is not empty, it is full of > water! But what would the wave be without the ocean? Yes, everything is a temporal appearance and disappearance, lacking any inherent reality of itself. >What *is* a wave > other than a temporary pattern? It is a wave that says so! There is nothing wrong with making comparisons of waves to oceans but the reality is a little bit more complex than this > > > > <What is solid and real is timeless consciousness> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you sure that consciousness ( as you have spoken of it > > above ) > > > is > > > > solid and real? > > > > > > Only that which cannot be measured *can* be real. > > > > > > Thoughts are real, Gods are real. A pink elephant is real. > > Dreams are real. > > Only in the form of relational existence. I am talking about absolute > existence. There is no absolute *and* rational / relative. These '2' are not separate. > > Every ME and every-thing is 'within mind'. > > There is nothing outside of mind. > > > > The world does not appear in a ME or anything else. > > What I think Nisargadatta meant was the same thing you say: > everything is 'within mind', so that there is no objective world at > all " out there " . There is no George W. Bush running around in the > world. There is a Geroge Bush running around in the world. >What I think Nisargadatta meant was that there is no external > world. George W. Bush is running around in your mind!> No. George Bush is not running around in anyones mind. >So are the > moon, the sun and the stars! :-) Same as above for anything at all. 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 Anders, > > Sorry about the delay in getting back to you, I have been away for a > week. Hi, I am glad you are back. > > > > > There is no 'my' now. > > > Now is above the 'me' and it's perception. > > > > My now and me are one. :-) > > > There is no 'my now'. Not like a possession, but as an experince of it. > > > > > How is it better to *say* anything? > > > For whose benefit? > > > > The absolute cannot be said to be one. There can only be one as > > a " thing " separare from other " things " . One is a way of counting an > > object. Absolute existence is not an object because an object only > > exists within a relational context. Saying 'not two' is perhaps not > > the truth either, but it is at least not stuck in " counting " things. > > > Yes, Being 'comes before' counting > > > > > You cannot grade reality to its realness. > > > A thought is 'just as real' as a tree, the gods are just as real > as > > a > > > coffee cup, it is all *real* > > > > Yes, but there are degrees in relational reality. And there are > also > > relational truths and relational false statements. All this is Maya > > (that which can be measured), but within Maya there are many > relative > > degrees. > > > Who is it that gives these degrees of truth their definition? > And what degree of truth or reality does that thing itself have. > > If something is real it is real there is no *need* to grade reality > TO it's realness. There are degrees in relational reality, but relational truth has usually no degrees, for example 2 + 4 = 4 = true, 2 + 2 = 5 = false. But if we say this soup is warm, then there can be found degrees in if this statement is true or not based on opinions e t c. This is a form of fuzzy logic. > > > > Sages speak about realizing the timeless Witness. I believe that is > a > > state of having transcended Maya. Not that one disappears in a > cloud > > of smoke into Nirvana, but more like being liberated *while* living > > in Maya. > > > > Who can be liberated and who disappears? When the separate self (the ego) disappears in a person then that person can be said to be liberated. > > > > > Yes, something in and of itself has no independent existence, > that > > > does not make it empty, it makes it empty OF independent > existence. > > > > I see reality as being a formless ocean, and material objects waves > > in this ocean. A wave in a real ocean is not empty, it is full of > > water! But what would the wave be without the ocean? > > > Yes, everything is a temporal appearance and disappearance, lacking > any inherent reality of itself. > > > >What *is* a wave > > other than a temporary pattern? > > > It is a wave that says so! > There is nothing wrong with making comparisons of waves to oceans but > the reality is a little bit more complex than this Or much more simple! Form is complex, but the formless cannot be said to be complex or not complex. We can never prove that there is such thing as the formless, but we can see that something absolute must be formless if we define absolute as something existing without any relations to anything else. But we cannot find something absolute either! Maybe existence seen as a whole can said to be absolute, but within that whole there is complexity. The formless - if there is such 'thing' - can thus probably not be reached by the intellect, but by radical direct knowlegde of 'it'. > > > > > > > > > <What is solid and real is timeless consciousness> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you sure that consciousness ( as you have spoken of it > > > above ) > > > > is > > > > > solid and real? > > > > > > > > Only that which cannot be measured *can* be real. > > > > > > > > > Thoughts are real, Gods are real. A pink elephant is real. > > > Dreams are real. > > > > Only in the form of relational existence. I am talking about > absolute > > existence. > > > There is no absolute *and* rational / relative. > These '2' are not separate. Yes, they must exist together or they would not be in existence. But maybe even to talk about absolute and relative is only possible from a relativ point of view. > > > > > Every ME and every-thing is 'within mind'. > > > There is nothing outside of mind. > > > > > > The world does not appear in a ME or anything else. > > > > What I think Nisargadatta meant was the same thing you say: > > everything is 'within mind', so that there is no objective world at > > all " out there " . There is no George W. Bush running around in the > > world. > > > There is a Geroge Bush running around in the world. > > >What I think Nisargadatta meant was that there is no external > > world. George W. Bush is running around in your mind!> > > > No. > George Bush is not running around in anyones mind. I think Nisargadatta meant *exactly* that everything is in one's mind, that the world is in one's mind! He may be right about this! Think of it like you are a Matrix yourself and in this Matrix everything you experience appear, everything in the Universe is you, not the you as a separate person but you as this Matrix itself. :-) /AL > > > >So are the > > moon, the sun and the stars! :-) > > > Same as above for anything at all. > > > 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, > > There is no 'my now'. > > Not like a possession, but as an experince of it. Now is 'above' the ME and the experience. > > If something is real it is real there is no *need* to grade reality > > TO it's realness. > > There are degrees in relational reality, but relational truth has > usually no degrees, for example 2 + 4 = 4 = true, 2 + 2 = 5 = false. This is logical truth and not what I meant above. If anything IS then it IS real. Both these statements are *real*. If something is real there is no need to grade it to *realNESS* this is what I meant. A 'thing' no matter how subtle or vague is *just as real* as anything else. > But if we say this soup is warm, then there can be found degrees in > if this statement is true or not based on opinions e t c. This is a > form of fuzzy logic. Opposites are not 2, they are one thing only, love hate, hot cold etc. Endpoints on a single continuum that define one thing only. > > Who can be liberated and who disappears? > > When the separate self (the ego) disappears in a person then that > person can be said to be liberated. The ego does not disappear in an 'enlightened' person it is still there exactly the same as 'before'. It *has* to be there exactly the same as before > > There is nothing wrong with making comparisons of waves to oceans > but > > the reality is a little bit more complex than this > > Or much more simple! Form is complex, but the formless cannot be said > to be complex or not complex> Formless is a concept that is not needed. >We can never prove that there is such > thing as the formless, but we can see that something absolute must be > formless if we define absolute as something existing without any > relations to anything else.> The 'formless' is our formulation just as must as Ganesha, Shiva or any other God. <But we cannot find something absolute > either! Maybe existence seen as a whole can said to be absolute, but > within that whole there is complexity> This is formulation and concept and exists as a part of the whole as apparent phenomenon within it. > > The formless - if there is such 'thing' - can thus probably not be > reached by the intellect, but by radical direct knowlegde of 'it'. > There is no such thing as the 'formless' outside of the mind that constructed the concept. What *is* The formless? There is no such 'thing' as The formless. > I think Nisargadatta meant *exactly* that everything is in one's > mind,> No, the world does not appear in anyones mind. <that the world is in one's mind! He may be right about this! > No, again the world does not appear in anyones mind. > Think of it like you are a Matrix yourself and in this Matrix > everything you experience appear, everything in the Universe is you, > not the you as a separate person but you as this Matrix itself. :-)> The 'you' is always a separate person mind / body. That what makes you a YOU, It is why you can be a YOU 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, > > > > There is no 'my now'. > > > > Not like a possession, but as an experince of it. > > > Now is 'above' the ME and the experience. > > > > > If something is real it is real there is no *need* to grade > reality > > > TO it's realness. > > > > There are degrees in relational reality, but relational truth has > > usually no degrees, for example 2 + 4 = 4 = true, 2 + 2 = 5 = > false. > > > This is logical truth and not what I meant above. > > If anything IS then it IS real. > > Both these statements are *real*. > If something is real there is no need to grade it to *realNESS* this > is what I meant. > > A 'thing' no matter how subtle or vague is *just as real* as anything > else. Ok, then I understand what you meant by real. What is is, and there can be no grades in that. > > > > But if we say this soup is warm, then there can be found degrees in > > if this statement is true or not based on opinions e t c. This is a > > form of fuzzy logic. > > > Opposites are not 2, they are one thing only, love hate, hot cold etc. > > Endpoints on a single continuum that define one thing only. Yes, I was talking about relative truth. > > > > > Who can be liberated and who disappears? > > > > When the separate self (the ego) disappears in a person then that > > person can be said to be liberated. > > > The ego does not disappear in an 'enlightened' person it is still > there exactly the same as 'before'. > > It *has* to be there exactly the same as before Ramesh Balsekar says that ego will remain, but _without_ the sense of personal doership. > > > > > There is nothing wrong with making comparisons of waves to oceans > > but > > > the reality is a little bit more complex than this > > > > Or much more simple! Form is complex, but the formless cannot be > said > > to be complex or not complex> > > > Formless is a concept that is not needed. All concepts are needed for the sake of appearances. If we talk pure logic, then maybe the concept is not needed, I don't know, but the word could be useful in for example poetry, or for describing art. :-) > > > >We can never prove that there is such > > thing as the formless, but we can see that something absolute must > be > > formless if we define absolute as something existing without any > > relations to anything else.> > > > The 'formless' is our formulation just as must as Ganesha, Shiva or > any other God. Maybe space can be described as formless? > > > <But we cannot find something absolute > > either! Maybe existence seen as a whole can said to be absolute, > but > > within that whole there is complexity> > > > This is formulation and concept and exists as a part of the whole as > apparent phenomenon within it. > > > > > > The formless - if there is such 'thing' - can thus probably not be > > reached by the intellect, but by radical direct knowlegde of 'it'. > > > > There is no such thing as the 'formless' outside of the mind that > constructed the concept. > > What *is* The formless? > > There is no such 'thing' as The formless. Maybe the formless is that which contains form? > > > > I think Nisargadatta meant *exactly* that everything is in one's > > mind,> > > > No, the world does not appear in anyones mind. We cannot know this for sure. It could be that we are pure consciousness and in this consciousness a world appear. > > > <that the world is in one's mind! He may be right about this! > > > > No, again the world does not appear in anyones mind. > > > > Think of it like you are a Matrix yourself and in this Matrix > > everything you experience appear, everything in the Universe is > you, > > not the you as a separate person but you as this Matrix itself. :- )> > > > The 'you' is always a separate person mind / body. > > That what makes you a YOU, It is why you can be a YOU Maybe not always. For example Tony Parsons says that there is nobody who have even done anything. This may sound ridiculous at first, but he may have a point! Tony says that the ordinary person owns a 'me', while he himself has no such 'me'. I guess what has happened is that the idea of being a separate person has been removed from his experience. This could be a brain damage, but maybe not, maybe he is in a more sane state than an ordinary person. /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 > > The ego does not disappear in an 'enlightened' person it is still > > there exactly the same as 'before'. > > > > It *has* to be there exactly the same as before > > Ramesh Balsekar says that ego will remain, but _without_ the sense of > personal doership. Yes, it *has* to remain. The ego is still the 'thing' that does and DOing is not possible without it. > > Formless is a concept that is not needed. > > All concepts are needed for the sake of appearances. For the sake of discussion and conceptualizing yes. When you rearrange the furniture you are doing the same thing. >If we talk pure > logic, then maybe the concept is not needed> You cannot apply logic to reality concerns logic is a construction within reality. >I don't know, but the > word could be useful in for example poetry, or for describing art. :-) Sure. > > > > The 'formless' is our formulation just as must as Ganesha, Shiva or > > any other God. > > Maybe space can be described as formless? Any description is a conception. Does space = the definition of 'formless' Any concept is a phenomenon just as real as a tree, 'formless' is a concept, a brick of phenomenality. > > What *is* The formless? > > > > There is no such 'thing' as The formless. > > Maybe the formless is that which contains form? There is no such 'thing'. Formless is a concept. > > > I think Nisargadatta meant *exactly* that everything is in one's > > > mind,> > > > > > > No, the world does not appear in anyones mind. > > We cannot know this for sure. It could be that we are pure > consciousness and in this consciousness a world appear. There is no 'We' that can *know*. The world does not appear in the mind of anyone because there is no Who that can *know*. We are not pure consciousness. > > The 'you' is always a separate person mind / body. > > > > That what makes you a YOU, It is why you can be a YOU > Maybe not always. For example Tony Parsons says that there is nobody > who have even done anything. Who or what is 'Tony Parsons'? People are doing things everyday. >This may sound ridiculous at first, but > he may have a point! Tony says that the ordinary person owns a 'me', > while he himself has no such 'me'.> This is a silly statement ( made by a ME ) I guess what has happened is that > the idea of being a separate person has been removed from his > experience. It is impossible to remove the experience of a separate person, Parsons. >This could be a brain damage, but maybe not, maybe he is > in a more sane state than an ordinary person> Maybe he wants to sell books. 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 > > > > The ego does not disappear in an 'enlightened' person it is still > > > there exactly the same as 'before'. > > > > > > It *has* to be there exactly the same as before > > > > Ramesh Balsekar says that ego will remain, but _without_ the sense > of > > personal doership. > > > Yes, it *has* to remain. > > The ego is still the 'thing' that does and DOing is not possible > without it. You then mean by DOing that things are done, whether there is sense of personal doership or not. > > > > > Formless is a concept that is not needed. > > > > All concepts are needed for the sake of appearances. > > > For the sake of discussion and conceptualizing yes. > > When you rearrange the furniture you are doing the same thing. > > > > >If we talk pure > > logic, then maybe the concept is not needed> > > > You cannot apply logic to reality concerns logic is a construction > within reality. Now you are using logic (it seems to me). ;-) > > > >I don't know, but the > > word could be useful in for example poetry, or for describing > art. :-) > > Sure. > > > > > > > > The 'formless' is our formulation just as must as Ganesha, Shiva > or > > > any other God. > > > > Maybe space can be described as formless? > > > Any description is a conception. > > Does space = the definition of 'formless' > > Any concept is a phenomenon just as real as a tree, 'formless' is a > concept, a brick of phenomenality. > > > > > What *is* The formless? > > > > > > There is no such 'thing' as The formless. > > > > Maybe the formless is that which contains form? > > > There is no such 'thing'. > > Formless is a concept. > > > > > > I think Nisargadatta meant *exactly* that everything is in > one's > > > > mind,> > > > > > > > > > No, the world does not appear in anyones mind. > > > > We cannot know this for sure. It could be that we are pure > > consciousness and in this consciousness a world appear. > > > There is no 'We' that can *know*. > > The world does not appear in the mind of anyone because there is no > Who that can *know*. > > We are not pure consciousness. Depends on what we mean by consciousness. Wayne Liqourman says that everything is consciousness. Just a definition of what is. > > > > > > > The 'you' is always a separate person mind / body. > > > > > > That what makes you a YOU, It is why you can be a YOU > > > > Maybe not always. For example Tony Parsons says that there is > nobody > > who have even done anything. > > > Who or what is 'Tony Parsons'? > > People are doing things everyday. Here is what Tony Says: " There is no separate intelligence weaving a destiny and no choice functioning at any level. Nothing is happening but this, as it is, invites the apparent seeker to rediscover that which is ... the abiding, uncaused, unchanging, impersonal silence from which unconditional love overflows and celebrates. It is the wonderful mystery. " I have concepts about 'no choice' but I think sages like Tony have a direct knowledge of this. > > > > >This may sound ridiculous at first, but > > he may have a point! Tony says that the ordinary person owns > a 'me', > > while he himself has no such 'me'.> > > > This is a silly statement ( made by a ME ) I probably put it in more silly way than as an actual quote. :-) > > > > I guess what has happened is that > > the idea of being a separate person has been removed from his > > experience. > > > It is impossible to remove the experience of a separate person, > Parsons. Yes, but I think the realization is that everything happens by itself, and that there is no sense of being a separate 'me' doing anything. Thoughts and feelings happen. Choices happen. But there is no 'me' being the cause of that happening. The 'me' is just an overlay over what is already happening by itself. :-) > > > >This could be a brain damage, but maybe not, maybe he is > > in a more sane state than an ordinary person> > > > Maybe he wants to sell books. Yes, that could be the case. A person has to (if he or she wants to) found out if there is a 'doer', a 'me' having individual volition or not. One way is to see how one feels. If one finds tremendous peace and happiness then I guess one is coming nearer to truth. But maybe so-called sages can sell books just because of me having vain hopes like this. :-) But I do know this: Nothing will come after this moment. That's a fact. /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, it *has* to remain. > > > > The ego is still the 'thing' that does and DOing is not possible > > without it. > > You then mean by DOing that things are done, whether there is sense > of personal doership or not. There is always a sense of personal doership with a ME. And a ME is the only thing that can do. > > You cannot apply logic to reality concerns logic is a construction > > within reality. > > Now you are using logic (it seems to me). ;-) I am not trying to describe or formulate what reality is, I am saying that logic cannot be used as a basis to conceptualize about reality because it is a mind construction within it or at the level of mentation. You cannot *think* about reality let alone apply the laws of logic TO it. > > We are not pure consciousness. > > Depends on what we mean by consciousness. Wayne Liqourman says that > everything is consciousness. Just a definition of what is. Whatever the definition of 'consciousness' We are not that. *Who* is 'Wayne Liquorman'? If Wayne Liquorman told you to bet your life savings on a sure bet racehorse... > > Who or what is 'Tony Parsons'? > > > > People are doing things everyday. > > " There is no separate intelligence weaving a destiny and no choice > functioning at any level> There are choices being made. <Nothing is happening but this, as it is, > invites the apparent seeker to rediscover that which is ... the > abiding, uncaused, unchanging, impersonal silence from which > unconditional love overflows and celebrates. It is the wonderful > mystery. " Who is what a mystery to? > > I have concepts about 'no choice' but I think sages like Tony have a > direct knowledge of this. Tony Parsons cannot *know* Tony Parsons is a ME like 'you'. > > >This may sound ridiculous at first, but > > > he may have a point! Tony says that the ordinary person owns > > a 'me', > > > while he himself has no such 'me'.> > > > > > > This is a silly statement ( made by a ME ) > > I probably put it in more silly way than as an actual quote. :-) Ok. If you find the quote please post it. > > I guess what has happened is that > > > the idea of being a separate person has been removed from his > > > experience. > > > > > > It is impossible to remove the experience of a separate person, > > > Parsons. > > Yes, but I think the realization is that everything happens by > itself, and that there is no sense of being a separate 'me' doing > anything> Everything does happen by itself AS a whole of inter-relatedness. The ME is the seperate thing that does. >Thoughts and feelings happen. Choices happen> Yes. >But there is > no 'me' being the cause of that happening. The 'me' is just an > overlay over what is already happening by itself. :-) The ME DOing and the unity functioning are not 2. > A person has to (if he or she wants to) found out if there is > a 'doer', a 'me' having individual volition or not. One way is to see > how one feels. If one finds tremendous peace and happiness then I > guess one is coming nearer to truth> How *one* feels is no indication of how ''enlightened'' one is; There is no *who* that can BE ''enlightenED''. >But maybe so-called sages can > sell books just because of me having vain hopes like this. :-) > > But I do know this: Nothing will come after this moment. That's a > fact. Which moment? 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, > > > > > Yes, it *has* to remain. > > > > > > The ego is still the 'thing' that does and DOing is not possible > > > without it. > > > > You then mean by DOing that things are done, whether there is sense > > of personal doership or not. > > > There is always a sense of personal doership with a ME. > > And a ME is the only thing that can do. So when Ramesh Balsekar says that he has no sense of personal doership he then has no ME? > > > > > > You cannot apply logic to reality concerns logic is a > construction > > > within reality. > > > > Now you are using logic (it seems to me). ;-) > > > I am not trying to describe or formulate what reality is, I am saying > that logic cannot be used as a basis to conceptualize about reality > because it is a mind construction within it or at the level of > mentation. > > You cannot *think* about reality let alone apply the laws of logic TO > it. So we can only think about unreality? In a way that is true, thinking is concepts, thinking is itself reality, but what the thoughts are in themselves are always just concepts, so I agree that we cannot think about reality directly and that the thinking *itself* is reality. > > > > > > We are not pure consciousness. > > > > Depends on what we mean by consciousness. Wayne Liqourman says that > > everything is consciousness. Just a definition of what is. > > > > Whatever the definition of 'consciousness' We are not that. > > *Who* is 'Wayne Liquorman'? > > If Wayne Liquorman told you to bet your life savings on a sure bet > racehorse... > > Even though I pretty much know that there is no future, I would probably not put all my money on a sure bet racehorse. :-) There *is* a future in the form of thinking. However, there is no future other than in the form of thinking. > > > > > Who or what is 'Tony Parsons'? > > > > > > People are doing things everyday. > > > > " There is no separate intelligence weaving a destiny and no choice > > functioning at any level> > > > There are choices being made. And there is thinking going on, but what is thought other than memory? Thinking going on right now is very recent memory being observed in this moment, but is it something else than memory? And is not choice thought and feeling, and is not choice itself only a memory? > > > <Nothing is happening but this, as it is, > > invites the apparent seeker to rediscover that which is ... the > > abiding, uncaused, unchanging, impersonal silence from which > > unconditional love overflows and celebrates. It is the wonderful > > mystery. " > > > Who is what a mystery to? To pure awareness blissfully experiencing unconditional love overflowing. :-) > > > > > > I have concepts about 'no choice' but I think sages like have > a > > direct knowledge of this. > > > Tony Parsons cannot *know* > > Tony Parsons is a ME like 'you'. Maybe there are levels of knowing beyond what the thinking mind is capable of? > > > > > > >This may sound ridiculous at first, but > > > > he may have a point! Tony says that the ordinary person owns > > > a 'me', > > > > while he himself has no such 'me'.> > > > > > > > > > This is a silly statement ( made by a ME ) > > > > I probably put it in more silly way than as an actual quote. :-) > > > Ok. > If you find the quote please post it. It is from: http://www.theopensecret.com/audio1.htm > > > > > I guess what has happened is that > > > > the idea of being a separate person has been removed from his > > > > experience. > > > > > > > > > It is impossible to remove the experience of a separate person, > > > > > Parsons. > > > > Yes, but I think the realization is that everything happens by > > itself, and that there is no sense of being a separate 'me' doing > > anything> > > > Everything does happen by itself AS a whole of inter-relatedness. > > The ME is the seperate thing that does. I believe that it is the whole that is unfolding and that there is nothing but that. So, there is imo only unfolding happening and no doing going on at all. Just as in a movie when for example a woman is baking cookies. Clearly she is doing somthing, but in reality what is happening is that a movie is being unfolded and that other than this movie being played there is no real doing going on at all. Similarly, in my view, the real world is just a pattern unfolding - all of it - and there is no one who is doing anything. Sure, people are baking cookies in the real world too, but that is the total pattern unfolding automatically we experience. When I bake cookies, then my thoughts, feelings, senses, me moving my body, opening the owen e t c is the same pattern unfolding automatically. Of course, there is a feeling and thoughts of 'I do this now, and now I put this plate into the owen...' e t c, but that too is a part of the automatic unfolding of reality. > > > >Thoughts and feelings happen. Choices happen> > > > Yes. > > > >But there is > > no 'me' being the cause of that happening. The 'me' is just an > > overlay over what is already happening by itself. :-) > > > The ME DOing and the unity functioning are not 2. You can bake cookies sleepwalking (it could happen :-) and you can bake cookies while being awake, with the same result; newly baked cookies! In the first scenario when you are sleepwalking it is clearly no 'you' there as a doer. But in the awake state there is a 'you' (unless you are a sage :-) there doing the baking. So there is really no 'you' as a doer needed to bake cookies. The 'you' is an add-on, but of course this 'you' *is* the unity functioning, and the sleepwalking is also the unity functioning. There is no real choice being made on any level, it is only unity as the only happening. > > > > A person has to (if he or she wants to) found out if there is > > a 'doer', a 'me' having individual volition or not. One way is to > see > > how one feels. If one finds tremendous peace and happiness then I > > guess one is coming nearer to truth> > > > How *one* feels is no indication of how ''enlightened'' one is; > > There is no *who* that can BE ''enlightenED''. > > > > >But maybe so-called sages can > > sell books just because of me having vain hopes like this. :-) > > > > But I do know this: Nothing will come after this moment. That's a > > fact. > > > Which moment? This moment. :-) /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, > > There is always a sense of personal doership with a ME. > > > > And a ME is the only thing that can do. > > So when Ramesh Balsekar says that he has no sense of personal > doership he then has no ME? When Ramesh Balsekar says that he has no sense of personal doership it is a ME that is saying so and a ME that *thinks* to say so. > > You cannot *think* about reality let alone apply the laws of logic > TO > > it. > > So we can only think about unreality? Thinking about 'Unreality' is also thinking. You cannot think to solve that which you are seeking. >In a way that is true, thinking > is concepts, thinking is itself reality> Yes, thinking is itself a part of the apparent phenomenon. but what the thoughts are in > themselves are always just concepts, so I agree that we cannot think > about reality directly and that the thinking *itself* is reality. Yes. > Even though I pretty much know that there is no future, I would > probably not put all my money on a sure bet racehorse. :-) There *is* > a future in the form of thinking> There is a future as well as a past that is a continuum of one whole now. >However, there is no future other > than in the form of thinking. There is a 'solid' definite future. > > There are choices being made. > > And there is thinking going on, but what is thought other than > memory? Thinking going on right now is very recent memory being > observed in this moment, but is it something else than memory? And is > not choice thought and feeling, and is not choice itself only a > memory? Choices and thinking do not occurr in the past, they arise 'live' and create the past ( time ), as too does everything no matter how subtle or gross. > > <Nothing is happening but this, as it is, > > > invites the apparent seeker to rediscover that which is ... the > > > abiding, uncaused, unchanging, impersonal silence from which > > > unconditional love overflows and celebrates. It is the wonderful > > > mystery. " > > > > > > Who is what a mystery to? > > To pure awareness blissfully experiencing unconditional love > overflowing. :-) A mystery can only be thought about and experienced by a ME, in this case Tony Parsons. > > > I have concepts about 'no choice' but I think sages like > have > > a > > > direct knowledge of this. > > > > > > Tony Parsons cannot *know* > > > > Tony Parsons is a ME like 'you'. > > Maybe there are levels of knowing beyond what the thinking mind is > capable of? Yes, depends what you mean by knowing and levels though, any levels and concepts by a ME and any knowing is by a ME. Any knowledge that Tony Parsons has of the no choice you are talking about is the mentation of a ME, Tony Parsons that has declared this. > > > > Ok. > > If you find the quote please post it. > > It is from: http://www.theopensecret.com/audio1.htm Great thanks, I will have a listen. > > Everything does happen by itself AS a whole of inter-relatedness. > > > > The ME is the seperate thing that does. > > I believe that it is the whole that is unfolding and that there is > nothing but that> The whole is a whole of inter-relatedness, the inter-relatedness is what makes the whole what the whole is. They are one but not one without the other. >So, there is imo only unfolding happening and no > doing going on at all. Just as in a movie when for example a woman is > baking cookies. Clearly she is doing somthing, but in reality what is > happening is that a movie is being unfolded and that other than this > movie being played there is no real doing going on at all >Sure, people are baking > cookies in the real world too, but that is the total pattern > unfolding automatically we experience. When I bake cookies, then my > thoughts, feelings, senses, me moving my body, opening the owen e t c > is the same pattern unfolding automatically. Of course, there is a > feeling and thoughts of 'I do this now, and now I put this plate into > the owen...' e t c, but that too is a part of the automatic unfolding > of reality. Everything does unfold automatically as a complete interaction of infinite reflections making that which is *WHAT* it IS. > You can bake cookies sleepwalking (it could happen :-) and you can > bake cookies while being awake, with the same result; newly baked > cookies! In the first scenario when you are sleepwalking it is > clearly no 'you' there as a doer> You cannot bake cookies sleepwalking since it requires a thinking mind. You could do so in a dream whether uncontrolled or a day dream or consciously controlled dream. >But in the awake state there is > a 'you' (unless you are a sage :-) there doing the baking. So there > is really no 'you' as a doer needed to bake cookies. The you in the case of the dream is the ME that is having and experiencing the dream. Baking cookies in a dream does not equal baking cookies in a shop. You can also have conscious controlled dreams and again this is a ME that this is occurring to. The 'you' is an > add-on, but of course this 'you' *is* the unity functioning, and the > sleepwalking is also the unity functioning. There is no real choice > being made on any level, it is only unity as the only happening. There is no difference in a human being making a choice and the functioning of the unity and there is no contradiction in these 2 which are one only. > > Which moment? > > This moment. :-) There is no 'this' moment. 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, > > > > There is always a sense of personal doership with a ME. > > > > > > And a ME is the only thing that can do. > > > > So when Ramesh Balsekar says that he has no sense of personal > > doership he then has no ME? > > > When Ramesh Balsekar says that he has no sense of personal doership > it is a ME that is saying so and a ME that *thinks* to say so. Yes, but still, it is a ME without a sense of personal doership. This is altogether different from the ordinary person. The ordinary person thinks it is he or she who by personal volition can make something happen. That's a great difference! > > > > > You cannot *think* about reality let alone apply the laws of > logic > > TO > > > it. > > > > So we can only think about unreality? > > > Thinking about 'Unreality' is also thinking. > > You cannot think to solve that which you are seeking. I find it most helpful to observe my thinking going on. I find that thinking is really empty in itself. > > > >In a way that is true, thinking > > is concepts, thinking is itself reality> > > > Yes, thinking is itself a part of the apparent phenomenon. > > > but what the thoughts are in > > themselves are always just concepts, so I agree that we cannot > think > > about reality directly and that the thinking *itself* is reality. > > > Yes. > > > > Even though I pretty much know that there is no future, I would > > probably not put all my money on a sure bet racehorse. :-) There > *is* > > a future in the form of thinking> > > > There is a future as well as a past that is a continuum of one whole > now. Yes, and we can not see the real future. > > > >However, there is no future other > > than in the form of thinking. > > > There is a 'solid' definite future. The real future we can never be aware of or experience. > > > > > There are choices being made. > > > > And there is thinking going on, but what is thought other than > > memory? Thinking going on right now is very recent memory being > > observed in this moment, but is it something else than memory? And > is > > not choice thought and feeling, and is not choice itself only a > > memory? > > > Choices and thinking do not occurr in the past, they arise 'live' and > create the past ( time ), as too does everything no matter how subtle > or gross. What you call 'live' is only the past. When your awareness registrates thoughts, choices and feelings they have already happened. So when you become aware of a choice, that choice has already been made. The choice is no creation, no process that can change anything. The choice is only an automatic happening. Sorry, you are a robot. ;-) hehe > > > > > <Nothing is happening but this, as it is, > > > > invites the apparent seeker to rediscover that which is ... the > > > > abiding, uncaused, unchanging, impersonal silence from which > > > > unconditional love overflows and celebrates. It is the > wonderful > > > > mystery. " > > > > > > > > > Who is what a mystery to? > > > > To pure awareness blissfully experiencing unconditional love > > overflowing. :-) > > > A mystery can only be thought about and experienced by a ME, in this > case Tony Parsons. An the ME can't do a shit. A ME *is*. > > > > > > I have concepts about 'no choice' but I think sages like > > have > > > a > > > > direct knowledge of this. > > > > > > > > > Tony Parsons cannot *know* > > > > > > Tony Parsons is a ME like 'you'. > > > > Maybe there are levels of knowing beyond what the thinking mind is > > capable of? > > > Yes, depends what you mean by knowing and levels though, any levels > and concepts by a ME and any knowing is by a ME. > > Any knowledge that Tony Parsons has of the no choice you are talking > about is the mentation of a ME, Tony Parsons that has declared this. You are coming from the intellect. You must cross this shoddy bridge called the intellect, the thinking mind, and take a look for yourself. I must do that too! :-) > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > If you find the quote please post it. > > > > It is from: http://www.theopensecret.com/audio1.htm > > > Great thanks, I will have a listen. > > > > > Everything does happen by itself AS a whole of inter- relatedness. > > > > > > The ME is the seperate thing that does. > > > > I believe that it is the whole that is unfolding and that there is > > nothing but that> > > > The whole is a whole of inter-relatedness, the inter-relatedness is > what makes the whole what the whole is. They are one but not one > without the other. Maybe the wholeness is one without a second! Just like an eye of a fly has many facets, so too can the One be the One and the Many, yet always be one without a second. > > > >So, there is imo only unfolding happening and no > > doing going on at all. Just as in a movie when for example a woman > is > > baking cookies. Clearly she is doing somthing, but in reality what > is > > happening is that a movie is being unfolded and that other than > this > > movie being played there is no real doing going on at all > >Sure, people are baking > > cookies in the real world too, but that is the total pattern > > unfolding automatically we experience. When I bake cookies, then my > > thoughts, feelings, senses, me moving my body, opening the owen e t > c > > is the same pattern unfolding automatically. Of course, there is a > > feeling and thoughts of 'I do this now, and now I put this plate > into > > the owen...' e t c, but that too is a part of the automatic > unfolding > > of reality. > > > Everything does unfold automatically as a complete interaction of > infinite reflections making that which is *WHAT* it IS. I like Tony Parsons explanations that there is " No-thing happening " . Nothing can be made into a concrete object. When we look at it, we find that a concrete object is just a thought/feeling/memory/image. > > > > You can bake cookies sleepwalking (it could happen :-) and you can > > bake cookies while being awake, with the same result; newly baked > > cookies! In the first scenario when you are sleepwalking it is > > clearly no 'you' there as a doer> > > > You cannot bake cookies sleepwalking since it requires a thinking > mind. > You could do so in a dream whether uncontrolled or a day dream or > consciously controlled dream. I have heard of people doing very advanced things while sleepwalking, just as advanced stuff as if they had been awake. The conscious control is not needed!!!!!! You only _think_ it is!!!!!!! The conscios control is imo an illusion, a play being played out, complexity unfolding, evolution, call it whatever you like, it is all happening automatically. > > > >But in the awake state there is > > a 'you' (unless you are a sage :-) there doing the baking. So there > > is really no 'you' as a doer needed to bake cookies. > > > The you in the case of the dream is the ME that is having and > experiencing the dream. > > Baking cookies in a dream does not equal baking cookies in a shop. > > You can also have conscious controlled dreams and again this is a ME > that this is occurring to. Yes, there is a difference between different degrees of involvement and experience, but that is all a part of an automatic unfoldment of a static pattern. There is no change happening, there is only awareness traveling through an already complete 'movie'. > > > The 'you' is an > > add-on, but of course this 'you' *is* the unity functioning, and > the > > sleepwalking is also the unity functioning. There is no real choice > > being made on any level, it is only unity as the only happening. > > > There is no difference in a human being making a choice and the > functioning of the unity and there is no contradiction in these 2 > which are one only. I see the world as an infinite 'DVD' record already made. Awareness is experience all of it in _this_ moment. There are no choices being made. How can what already is be altered, and by who? The idea that a separate ME can change what already is is absurd according to me. _When_ will that change happen? Now? All you are aware of has already happened. It is impossible to change the past, and _all_ we can be aware of is only the past. It matters not is we are talking nanoseconds for the synapses in the brain to come up with a thought, it is still only the past we see when thinking, feeling, seeing e t c. > > > > > Which moment? > > > > This moment. :-) > > > There is no 'this' moment. Yes, there is, just now! :-) And all you can be aware of right now is only the past. Can you change the past? /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, > > When Ramesh Balsekar says that he has no sense of personal doership > > it is a ME that is saying so and a ME that *thinks* to say so. > Yes, but still, it is a ME without a sense of personal doership> The ME can deny it's own existence just as it can deny personal doership, either way it is a ME asserting a belief. In denying it's existence a ME says that it is in fact a ME. >This > is altogether different from the ordinary person. The ordinary person > thinks it is he or she who by personal volition can make something A sage is an ordinary person. We should probably say that there is no such thing as a 'sage'. > happen. That's a great difference! > > Thinking about 'Unreality' is also thinking. > > > > You cannot think to solve that which you are seeking. > > I find it most helpful to observe my thinking going on> Yes, it is extremely rewarding and *revealing* to observe your thinking. >I find that > thinking is really empty in itself. Look at your thoughts for 10 minutes everyday without any participation just objectively look and I am sure you will be very surprised at just how very alive and real thoughts are. Thinking is also *necessary* for us humans. > > There is a future as well as a past that is a continuum of one > whole > > now. > > Yes, and we can not see the real future. Some MEs can, and the past also. > > There is a 'solid' definite future. > > The real future we can never be aware of or experience. Some MEs can. > > Choices and thinking do not occurr in the past, they arise 'live' > and > > create the past ( time ), as too does everything no matter how > subtle > > or gross. > > What you call 'live' is only the past> No, everything that happens arises as an event live ( or in other words before time ). Anything no matter how subtle or gross arises not in the 'past' but in the process of 'creating time' ( the past ) by it's arising in the whole. >When your awareness > registrates thoughts, choices and feelings they have already > happened. So when you become aware of a choice, that choice has > already been made. The choice is no creation, no process that can > change anything. The choice is only an automatic happening. Sorry, > you are a robot. ;-) hehe A robot cannot make a choice or a make decision. Every ME is a living thinking being responsible for it's actions. > > A mystery can only be thought about and experienced by a ME, in > this > > case Tony Parsons. > > An the ME can't do a shit. A ME *is*. Everything *IS*. There is no doing without a ME. TO a reflected self something is done through someone, TO the unity nothing is done through no-one. You cannot apply law of excluded middle logic to this concern by fitting it to a model which excludes one in favour of the other. > > Any knowledge that Tony Parsons has of the no choice you are > talking > > about is the mentation of a ME, Tony Parsons that has declared this. > > You are coming from the intellect. You must cross this shoddy bridge > called the intellect, the thinking mind, and take a look for > yourself. I must do that too! :-) That is impossible to do whilst you and me are discussing this material. If one wants to get beyond the intellect then thinking and *conceptualizing* must stop. Do you meditate or practice anything? > > The whole is a whole of inter-relatedness, the inter-relatedness is > > what makes the whole what the whole is. They are one but not one > > without the other. > > Maybe the wholeness is one without a second! Just like an eye of a > fly has many facets, so too can the One be the One and the Many, yet > always be one without a second. Yes. > I have heard of people doing very advanced things while sleepwalking, > just as advanced stuff as if they had been awake. The conscious > control is not needed!!!!!! You only _think_ it is!!!!!!! The > conscios control is imo an illusion, a play being played out, > complexity unfolding, evolution, call it whatever you like, it is all > happening automatically. Anything that requires thinking and mentation cannot be done sleepwalking, sleepwalking is like an acted out dream, same as in bed when you pretend to hit someone in a dream fight or yell out when frightened etc. > > I see the world as an infinite 'DVD' record already made. Awareness > is experience all of it in _this_ moment. There are no choices being > made. How can what already is be altered, and by who? The idea that a > separate ME can change what already is is absurd according to me. Change is what makes what is what is and change is interaction. The ME is what changes, every action affects the whole and arises as the whole. > _When_ will that change happen? Now? All you are aware of has already > happened. It is impossible to change the past, and _all_ we can be > aware of is only the past. > > There is no 'this' moment. > > Yes, there is, just now! :-) There is only now, moments are a ME marking time. > And all you can be aware of right now is only the past. Can you > change the past? Again, things do not arise in the past. 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, > > > > When Ramesh Balsekar says that he has no sense of personal > doership > > > it is a ME that is saying so and a ME that *thinks* to say so. > > > Yes, but still, it is a ME without a sense of personal doership> > > > The ME can deny it's own existence just as it can deny personal > doership, either way it is a ME asserting a belief. No, something being self-aware cannot deny its own existence. Can you deny your own existence? See? Only a mentally ill person would deny his or her own existence in the form of saying so, but who is the person saying so, a non-existent person? If we had a jury deciding if the mentally ill person did exist or not, they would say, yes, this person exists. Is a sage mentally ill or not I don't know, but there could be experience without a sense of personal doership. And such experience may be more in line with reality that having a sense of being a separate doer. When you drink water then that is not a belief. A sage may have tasted something we have not tasted, so you cannot say for sure that being without a sense of personal doership is a belief or not. You have to drink the water yourself or find out once and for all that there is no water to drink! Mere intellectual analysis will probably never be able to find out if the water is real or not. > > In denying it's existence a ME says that it is in fact a ME. > > > >This > > is altogether different from the ordinary person. The ordinary > person > > thinks it is he or she who by personal volition can make something > > > A sage is an ordinary person. > We should probably say that there is no such thing as a 'sage'. J. Krishnamurti talks about a deep radical change in the mind where the mind becomes whole and not fragmented as the intellect always is. I cannot say if he is right or not, but what he says seems logical. A child is not different than an adult, yet there is a difference. > > > > happen. That's a great difference! > > > > Thinking about 'Unreality' is also thinking. > > > > > > You cannot think to solve that which you are seeking. > > > > I find it most helpful to observe my thinking going on> > > > > Yes, it is extremely rewarding and *revealing* to observe your > thinking. > > > >I find that > > thinking is really empty in itself. > > > Look at your thoughts for 10 minutes everyday without any > participation just objectively look and I am sure you will be very > surprised at just how very alive and real thoughts are. > > Thinking is also *necessary* for us humans. I would say that thoughts are necessary when they are there. I have noticed that the power in a thought is not the thought itself but in its relations to other thoughts and memories, and then foremost _emotional_ memories. So thoughts become really strong and alive, and that is why most people are trapped in them, I believe. Thoughts about past and future creates a whole inner world that the mind beholds as in many cases being more important than what is actually going on in the present moment beside those thoughts. And when the mind has nothing else to compare its thought-generated world with it will remain trapped in the cage of thinking. Someone says: " Try to be in the now " , and the intellect says: " How ridiculos, I am already in the now, I am always in the now " . But the fact is that although the intellect appear within the now, it is never in the now, it misses it completely. > > > > > > There is a future as well as a past that is a continuum of one > > whole > > > now. > > > > Yes, and we can not see the real future. > > > Some MEs can, and the past also. But then it is only a mental *picture* of the real future the see. They still live inside the cage of the intellect!!!!! > > > > > > There is a 'solid' definite future. > > > > The real future we can never be aware of or experience. > > > Some MEs can. To be FULLY in the future you actually have to time-travel. I am not saying that that is impossible, but I doubt that it is possible. > > > > > > Choices and thinking do not occurr in the past, they arise 'live' > > and > > > create the past ( time ), as too does everything no matter how > > subtle > > > or gross. > > > > What you call 'live' is only the past> > > > No, everything that happens arises as an event live ( or in other > words before time ). > Anything no matter how subtle or gross arises not in the 'past' but > in the process of 'creating time' ( the past ) by it's arising in the > whole. Science will tell you that a thought has already been generated when you become aware of it. Thought is always only the past. > > > >When your awareness > > registrates thoughts, choices and feelings they have already > > happened. So when you become aware of a choice, that choice has > > already been made. The choice is no creation, no process that can > > change anything. The choice is only an automatic happening. Sorry, > > you are a robot. ;-) hehe > > > A robot cannot make a choice or a make decision. > Every ME is a living thinking being responsible for it's actions. Sure, if someone breaks the law, then he or she is responsible. However, I think that there are no real choices being made as a separate entity, by a 'Ghost in the machine', but rather, that choices simply happens as a part of nature as a whole being unfolded. I may be wrong, and then it is my personal choice to be wrong! I may be right and then there is nothing we can no about anything, then we are completely helpless!!! But wait a minute, *who* is helpless? ;-) > > > > > A mystery can only be thought about and experienced by a ME, in > > this > > > case Tony Parsons. > > > > An the ME can't do a shit. A ME *is*. > > > Everything *IS*. > There is no doing without a ME. > > TO a reflected self something is done through someone, TO the unity > nothing is done through no-one. > > You cannot apply law of excluded middle logic to this concern by > fitting it to a model which excludes one in favour of the other. Logic is by its nature limited, so logic can only reach a bit, but not all the way. You can use logic to describe the taste of Coca Cola, but however much you try, you will still stand with only a logical description. The intellect is limited. > > > > > > Any knowledge that Tony Parsons has of the no choice you are > > talking > > > about is the mentation of a ME, Tony Parsons that has declared > this. > > > > You are coming from the intellect. You must cross this shoddy > bridge > > called the intellect, the thinking mind, and take a look for > > yourself. I must do that too! :-) > > > That is impossible to do whilst you and me are discussing this > material. > If one wants to get beyond the intellect then thinking and > *conceptualizing* must stop. > > Do you meditate or practice anything? I did some Kriya Yoga some time ago, and sometimes I go to Yoga in the form of workout classes. I would like to meditate, but I have not really found the will to do it for any longer periods. I meditate all the time in the form of observing everything that is going on in me though. :-) > > > > > The whole is a whole of inter-relatedness, the inter- relatedness > is > > > what makes the whole what the whole is. They are one but not one > > > without the other. > > > > Maybe the wholeness is one without a second! Just like an eye of a > > fly has many facets, so too can the One be the One and the Many, > yet > > always be one without a second. > > > Yes. > > > I have heard of people doing very advanced things while > sleepwalking, > > just as advanced stuff as if they had been awake. The conscious > > control is not needed!!!!!! You only _think_ it is!!!!!!! The > > conscios control is imo an illusion, a play being played out, > > complexity unfolding, evolution, call it whatever you like, it is > all > > happening automatically. > > > Anything that requires thinking and mentation cannot be done > sleepwalking, sleepwalking is like an acted out dream, same as in bed > when you pretend to hit someone in a dream fight or yell out when > frightened etc. Many people can do things while having a black-out because of drinking too much alcohol. I recently heard of a person who have had such black-out, and when he woke up, the apartment was cleaned, with all clothes neatly folded and so on, and he wondered how the heck was this possible! :-) > > > > > I see the world as an infinite 'DVD' record already made. Awareness > > is experience all of it in _this_ moment. There are no choices > being > > made. How can what already is be altered, and by who? The idea that > a > > separate ME can change what already is is absurd according to me. > > > Change is what makes what is what is and change is interaction. > The ME is what changes, every action affects the whole and arises as > the whole. I see change as a single happening, i.e. the entire universe as a single quantum field changing as one unit without any choice being made within it. > > > > _When_ will that change happen? Now? All you are aware of has > already > > happened. It is impossible to change the past, and _all_ we can be > > aware of is only the past. > > > There is no 'this' moment. > > > > Yes, there is, just now! :-) > > > There is only now, moments are a ME marking time. > > > > And all you can be aware of right now is only the past. Can you > > change the past? > > > Again, things do not arise in the past. Things arise in our awareness, and when it does, all observed things have already happened, so all we see is the past. /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 again, > No, something being self-aware cannot deny its own existence> A ME is not self aware and a human being is not self aware. A ME can deny it's own existence, a ME can also deny personal ME doership, but any denying by a ME is in fact asserting the existence of a thinking ME. > > A sage is an ordinary person. > > We should probably say that there is no such thing as a 'sage'. > > J. Krishnamurti talks about a deep radical change in the mind where > the mind becomes whole and not fragmented as the intellect always is. > I cannot say if he is right or not, but what he says seems logical. A > child is not different than an adult, yet there is a difference. Many people say many different things, it is concepts dressing more concepts, decorating a christmas tree with another christmas tree. > I would say that thoughts are necessary when they are there. I have > noticed that the power in a thought is not the thought itself but in > its relations to other thoughts and memories, and then foremost > _emotional_ memories> The power of a thought is the power or attention you give it, either through emotion like you say or any type of attention. Thoughts also arise in response to past memories and emotions, our thinking is linked to past experiences. >Thoughts > about past and future creates a whole inner world that the mind > beholds as in many cases being more important than what is actually > going on in the present moment beside those thoughts> Yes. > > Some MEs can, and the past also. > > But then it is only a mental *picture* of the real future the see. > They still live inside the cage of the intellect!!!!! You cannot use the intellect to see the future in the form of thinking about it. > > > > There is a 'solid' definite future. > > > > > > The real future we can never be aware of or experience. > > > > > > Some MEs can. > > To be FULLY in the future you actually have to time-travel. I am not > saying that that is impossible, but I doubt that it is possible. To see in the future you have to be able to perceive an event. > > No, everything that happens arises as an event live ( or in other > > words before time ). > > Anything no matter how subtle or gross arises not in the 'past' but > > in the process of 'creating time' ( the past ) by it's arising in > the > > whole. > > Science will tell you that a thought has already been generated when > you become aware of it. Thought is always only the past. Nothing including thoughts arises in the past. > > You cannot apply law of excluded middle logic to this concern by > > fitting it to a model which excludes one in favour of the other. > > Logic is by its nature limited, so logic can only reach a bit, but > not all the way. You can use logic to describe the taste of Coca > Cola, but however much you try, you will still stand with only a > logical description. The intellect is limited. Yes. > > Do you meditate or practice anything? > > I did some Kriya Yoga some time ago, and sometimes I go to Yoga in > the form of workout classes. I would like to meditate, but I have not > really found the will to do it for any longer periods. I meditate all > the time in the form of observing everything that is going on in me > though. :-) Ok. Yes, just looking at thoughts is illuminating. Who is this me? > Many people can do things while having a black-out because of > drinking too much alcohol. I recently heard of a person who have had > such black-out, and when he woke up, the apartment was cleaned, with > all clothes neatly folded and so on, and he wondered how the heck was > this possible! :-) Cleaning up is the last thing on a drunk persons mind, it was probably his angry girlfriend > > I see change as a single happening, i.e. the entire universe as a > single quantum field changing as one unit without any choice being > made within it. Choices are a part of the whole as is any interaction. > > > And all you can be aware of right now is only the past. Can you > > > change the past? > Things arise in our awareness, and when it does, all observed things > have already happened, so all we see is the past. Things do not arise in the past nor in *our* awareness. 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 again, > > > > No, something being self-aware cannot deny its own existence> > > > A ME is not self aware and a human being is not self aware. > > A ME can deny it's own existence, a ME can also deny personal ME > doership, but any denying by a ME is in fact asserting the existence > of a thinking ME. This is the intellect you are talking about; the thought-machine. This type of denial of being a doer is not non-doing. > > > > A sage is an ordinary person. > > > We should probably say that there is no such thing as a 'sage'. > > > > J. Krishnamurti talks about a deep radical change in the mind where > > the mind becomes whole and not fragmented as the intellect always > is. > > I cannot say if he is right or not, but what he says seems logical. > A > > child is not different than an adult, yet there is a difference. > > > Many people say many different things, it is concepts dressing more > concepts, decorating a christmas tree with another christmas tree. What Krishnamurti says is to observe this christmas tree as being thought, and thought is the past. Relationships between human beings are indirect when thought is involved. It is the thinking mind having relations to its own thoughts. The thinking mind breeds fear and desire and knows nothing about joy/delight/bliss. > > > > I would say that thoughts are necessary when they are there. I have > > noticed that the power in a thought is not the thought itself but > in > > its relations to other thoughts and memories, and then foremost > > _emotional_ memories> > > > The power of a thought is the power or attention you give it, either > through emotion like you say or any type of attention. > > Thoughts also arise in response to past memories and emotions, our > thinking is linked to past experiences. > > > >Thoughts > > about past and future creates a whole inner world that the mind > > beholds as in many cases being more important than what is actually > > going on in the present moment beside those thoughts> > > Yes. > > > > > Some MEs can, and the past also. > > > > But then it is only a mental *picture* of the real future the see. > > They still live inside the cage of the intellect!!!!! > > > You cannot use the intellect to see the future in the form of > thinking about it. Probably not, but it is still only an image of the future an oracle sees, and that is entirely different from actually *being* in the future. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the dinner. It is the same thing with all forms of thinking/feeling/imaging about past and future. The thinking mind lives in a map and not in the real world. The thinking mind has only a relation to its own thoughts. Even now as I write this, it is only a response to my own intellect's thoughts and feelings about your post, it is all an internal communication going on in my mind, its like the intellect divides itself into a 'me' and 'my' ideas, the a 'you' and 'your' ideas, but what is happening in reality is that both the 'me' and the 'you' are only thoughts in the form a map my intellect uses. The map is one, but the intellect splits this map into 'me' and 'you'. You can see this for yourself when you reply to this post. All you are doing if you are using the intellect is responding to your own thoughts about the post. The intellect can never meet the present as it is, it can only meet its own thoughts. > > > > > > There is a 'solid' definite future. > > > > > > > > The real future we can never be aware of or experience. > > > > > > > > > Some MEs can. > > > > To be FULLY in the future you actually have to time-travel. I am > not > > saying that that is impossible, but I doubt that it is possible. > > > To see in the future you have to be able to perceive an event. Yes, that may be interesting, but as I said, the menu is not the dinner. > > > > > > No, everything that happens arises as an event live ( or in other > > > words before time ). > > > Anything no matter how subtle or gross arises not in the 'past' > but > > > in the process of 'creating time' ( the past ) by it's arising in > > the > > > whole. > > > > Science will tell you that a thought has already been generated > when > > you become aware of it. Thought is always only the past. > > > Nothing including thoughts arises in the past. If you observe your own thoughts you will see that they are responses to the present by knowledge from the past. New ideas are only new configurations of past knowledge and experience. Truly new ideas comes more like a form of intuition than as a ordinary thinking. Try to use your intellect now to come up with a new invention, and you will see that it is only images from the past that will be churned around in your mind. > > > > > You cannot apply law of excluded middle logic to this concern by > > > fitting it to a model which excludes one in favour of the other. > > > > Logic is by its nature limited, so logic can only reach a bit, but > > not all the way. You can use logic to describe the taste of Coca > > Cola, but however much you try, you will still stand with only a > > logical description. The intellect is limited. > > > Yes. > > > > Do you meditate or practice anything? > > > > I did some Kriya Yoga some time ago, and sometimes I go to Yoga in > > the form of workout classes. I would like to meditate, but I have > not > > really found the will to do it for any longer periods. I meditate > all > > the time in the form of observing everything that is going on in me > > though. :-) > > > Ok. Yes, just looking at thoughts is illuminating. > Who is this me? If we picture the thoughts going in one's mind as a TV screen, then a figure in that TV screen is the 'me'. What we call relationships are this 'me' figure having communication with 'another person' with is _also_ a figure in the same TV screen. So the intellect is only having a communication with itself, and even that internal communication is just images on a TV screen happening without a 'me' doing anything, becuase the 'me' is a figure _in_ the TV screen itself, and the 'me' cannot create itself, it is only a seemingly separate part of the TV screen which is result of the universe itself. > > > > Many people can do things while having a black-out because of > > drinking too much alcohol. I recently heard of a person who have > had > > such black-out, and when he woke up, the apartment was cleaned, > with > > all clothes neatly folded and so on, and he wondered how the heck > was > > this possible! :-) > > > Cleaning up is the last thing on a drunk persons mind, it was > probably his angry girlfriend No, there was no girlfriend there! I remember having driven to the office in tired states without remembering how I did it. Red lights, changing files, making the right turns e t c, all happening automatically! > > > > > > I see change as a single happening, i.e. the entire universe as a > > single quantum field changing as one unit without any choice being > > made within it. > > > Choices are a part of the whole as is any interaction. Who is the 'me' making the choice? > > > > > And all you can be aware of right now is only the past. Can > you > > > > change the past? > > Things arise in our awareness, and when it does, all observed > things > > have already happened, so all we see is the past. > > > Things do not arise in the past nor in *our* awareness. All things arise in this moment in your brain. You do not see the brain cells, but instead a picture of the world created by the visual cortex. When you become aware of this picture, it has already been processed in a very advanced way. The image from the eyes comes in to the brain upside-down, and there are two images coming in, one from each eye. All you see is the past. All you think is the past. All you feel is the past. Isn't that wonderful? :-) /AL > > 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 Hi again, > > A ME is not self aware and a human being is not self aware. > > > > A ME can deny it's own existence, a ME can also deny personal ME > > doership, but any denying by a ME is in fact asserting the > existence > > of a thinking ME. > > This is the intellect you are talking about; the thought-machine. > This type of denial of being a doer is not non-doing. ME is not just the intellect, ME *includes* the intellect. > > > J. Krishnamurti talks about a deep radical change in the mind > where > > > the mind becomes whole and not fragmented as the intellect always > > is. The intellect > thinking / mentation is WHAT fragments. > > Many people say many different things, it is concepts dressing more > > concepts, decorating a christmas tree with another christmas tree. > > What Krishnamurti says is to observe this christmas tree as being > thought, and thought is the past. Thought does not arise in the past. A christmas tree is not a thought it is thought about. Thinking about what Krishnamurti or anyone else has said and adding more concepts to it is dressing concepts with concepts. > > You cannot use the intellect to see the future in the form of > > thinking about it. > > Probably not, but it is still only an image of the future an oracle > sees, and that is entirely different from actually *being* in the > future. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the dinner.> Yes, this is correct in the case of someone simply seeing the future like an oracle or in a premonition. It > is the same thing with all forms of thinking/feeling/imaging about > past and future. The thinking mind lives in a map and not in the real > world> The thinking mind is the real world. It is just as much a part of the real world as a tree. A ME interacts with the world and touches it without any seperation whatsoever. >The thinking mind has only a relation to its own thoughts> The ME interacts with the world directly which includes other MEs and things. > Even now as I write this, it is only a response to my own intellect's > thoughts and feelings about your post, it is all an internal > communication going on in my mind, A ME is responding to an email. >its like the intellect divides > itself into a 'me' and 'my' ideas, the a 'you' and 'your' ideas, but > what is happening in reality is that both the 'me' and the 'you' are > only thoughts in the form a map my intellect uses. The map is one, > but the intellect splits this map into 'me' and 'you'> Yes, the intellect / thinking is what splits. The world ( map ) is one yes, and ME and YOU are a part of that world. >The intellect can never meet the present as it is, it can > only meet its own thoughts. The intellect is a name we give to a function of a ME it is not a single thing that encounters itself. When thinking is occuring a ME is required. > > Nothing including thoughts arises in the past. > > If you observe your own thoughts you will see that they are responses > to the present by knowledge from the past> The *nature* of the thoughts that arise is very dependent on past experience yes. New ideas are only new > configurations of past knowledge and experience. Truly new ideas > comes more like a form of intuition than as a ordinary thinking> There is no such thing as a new idea, but '''''new''''' ideas yes come in the form of intuition. Ideas are building blocks that we have to play with, like archetypal blocks with which to use or construct, WE do not own ideas, they are not 'our' ideas. Try > to use your intellect now to come up with a new invention, and you > will see that it is only images from the past that will be churned > around in your mind> The generation of '''new''' ideas is dependent upon the 'maturity' or level of mind of the ME, to this level corresponds which thoughts are available. > > Ok. Yes, just looking at thoughts is illuminating. > > Who is this me? > > If we picture the thoughts going in one's mind as a TV screen, then a > figure in that TV screen is the 'me'> 'If we picture..' This is a conceptualization of what *you* ( a ME ) think a ME is. ME is not the conceptualization above, a ME is conceptualizing the above. What we call relationships are > this 'me' figure having communication with 'another person' with is > _also_ a figure in the same TV screen> Both are MEs Relationships are a thinking ME talking to another thinking ME. >So the intellect is only > having a communication with itself> No, a ME is talking to a ME. The intellect is a part of what makes a ME a ME. and even that internal > communication is just images on a TV screen happening without a 'me' > doing anything, becuase the 'me' is a figure _in_ the TV screen > itself, and the 'me' cannot create itself, it is only a seemingly > separate part of the TV screen which is result of the universe itself. A ME is a part of the world, what a ME is is what makes it separate. > > I remember having driven to the office in tired states without > remembering how I did it. Red lights, changing files, making the > right turns e t c, all happening automatically! There was still a thinking ME, you cannot drive a car in your sleep, there was memory loss due to tiredness, inattention or another reason, but a ME was / is still required. > Who is the 'me' making the choice? A ME that *thinks of itself* as such. > > Things do not arise in the past nor in *our* awareness. > > All things arise in this moment in your brain. You do not see the > brain cells, but instead a picture of the world created by the visual > cortex. When you become aware of this picture, it has already been > processed in a very advanced way. The image from the eyes comes in to > the brain upside-down, and there are two images coming in, one from > each eye. All you see is the past. All you think is the past. All you > feel is the past. Isn't that wonderful? :-) Any event, happening, thought or feeling does not arise in the past. As events and thoughts arise they arise *as* time. What you are calling the past has been created *by* the arising of any-*thing* no matter how subtle or gross. It is not the other way around, time is not an available resource in which events, happenings and thoughts can arise in 'a' or 'the' past. 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 again, > > > > A ME is not self aware and a human being is not self aware. > > > > > > A ME can deny it's own existence, a ME can also deny personal ME > > > doership, but any denying by a ME is in fact asserting the > > existence > > > of a thinking ME. > > > > This is the intellect you are talking about; the thought-machine. > > This type of denial of being a doer is not non-doing. > > > ME is not just the intellect, ME *includes* the intellect. Yes, I understand that what you mean by the ME is the total human 'beingness'. > > > > > > > J. Krishnamurti talks about a deep radical change in the mind > > where > > > > the mind becomes whole and not fragmented as the intellect > always > > > is. > > > The intellect > thinking / mentation is WHAT fragments. Yes, I agree. > > > > > Many people say many different things, it is concepts dressing > more > > > concepts, decorating a christmas tree with another christmas tree. > > > > What Krishnamurti says is to observe this christmas tree as being > > thought, and thought is the past. > > > Thought does not arise in the past. > > A christmas tree is not a thought it is thought about. > Thinking about what Krishnamurti or anyone else has said and adding > more concepts to it is dressing concepts with concepts. But that is what thinking is; adding and shuffling concepts around. The fact is that thoughts, _all_ thoughts are first processed by the synapses and neurons in the brain and then appear as an imagage/words in awareness. So when a thought lits up in the 'mind', it is already old, it has already been created, and what is more, that which triggered the thought is 'new' (very recent past in the form of the human senses such as touch, seeing and smell), but what fueled the thought was much older memories and knowledge. So thought is never new. Maybe if we have an 'intuitive' thought there can be some newness to the thought, but other than that thought is just old memories being churned around. > > > > > > You cannot use the intellect to see the future in the form of > > > thinking about it. > > > > Probably not, but it is still only an image of the future an oracle > > sees, and that is entirely different from actually *being* in the > > future. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the dinner.> > > > Yes, this is correct in the case of someone simply seeing the future > like an oracle or in a premonition. > > > > It > > is the same thing with all forms of thinking/feeling/imaging about > > past and future. The thinking mind lives in a map and not in the > real > > world> > > > The thinking mind is the real world. > > It is just as much a part of the real world as a tree. > > A ME interacts with the world and touches it without any seperation > whatsoever. The intellect is like a big cloud of thoughts and feelings around me all the time. At least that is how I experience it. This cloud is the ego, this is the part of me that is only interested in me, me, me. And the horrible thing is that it is only the past and future me this cloud is interested in. It misses the present moment completely. " Me, me, me, me. Me too. " -- Agent Smith, in the Matrix Reloaded movie This ego cloud is what separates the Self from the Self. > > > > >The thinking mind has only a relation to its own thoughts> > > > The ME interacts with the world directly which includes other MEs and > things. No, it is only thought meeting thought in the same mind. You are blinded by your own intellect. You are not responding to this post, you are responding to your own thoughts about this post. Similarly, I am only responding to my own thoughts about what you have written, it is only my thoughts having a relation with my thoughts. > > > > Even now as I write this, it is only a response to my own > intellect's > > thoughts and feelings about your post, it is all an internal > > communication going on in my mind, > > > A ME is responding to an email. It is all going on as a mental thought-process in that ME. It is the ME in communication with the same ME. The reason you don't see this, is because your intellect is making you blind. > > > >its like the intellect divides > > itself into a 'me' and 'my' ideas, the a 'you' and 'your' ideas, > but > > what is happening in reality is that both the 'me' and the 'you' > are > > only thoughts in the form a map my intellect uses. The map is one, > > but the intellect splits this map into 'me' and 'you'> > > > Yes, the intellect / thinking is what splits. > > The world ( map ) is one yes, and ME and YOU are a part of that world. > > > >The intellect can never meet the present as it is, it can > > only meet its own thoughts. > > > The intellect is a name we give to a function of a ME it is not a > single thing that encounters itself. > > When thinking is occuring a ME is required. There must be an expericencer of thoughts, yes. > > > > > Nothing including thoughts arises in the past. > > > > If you observe your own thoughts you will see that they are > responses > > to the present by knowledge from the past> > > > The *nature* of the thoughts that arise is very dependent on past > experience yes. > > > > New ideas are only new > > configurations of past knowledge and experience. > Truly new ideas > > comes more like a form of intuition than as a ordinary thinking> > > > There is no such thing as a new idea, but '''''new''''' ideas yes > come in the form of intuition. > > Ideas are building blocks that we have to play with, like archetypal > blocks with which to use or construct, WE do not own ideas, they are > not 'our' ideas. > > > Try > > to use your intellect now to come up with a new invention, and you > > will see that it is only images from the past that will be churned > > around in your mind> > > > The generation of '''new''' ideas is dependent upon the 'maturity' or > level of mind of the ME, to this level corresponds which thoughts are > available. A jump is needed. A jump from the intellect to intuition. " There is no psychological evolution " -- J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > Ok. Yes, just looking at thoughts is illuminating. > > > Who is this me? > > > > If we picture the thoughts going in one's mind as a TV screen, then > a > > figure in that TV screen is the 'me'> > > > 'If we picture..' > > This is a conceptualization of what *you* ( a ME ) think a ME is. > > ME is not the conceptualization above, a ME is conceptualizing the > above. You can see very clearly by direct observation that thinking is going on in your mind. This thinking is having a communication with itself. That is what is happening when it comes to thoughts. > > > What we call relationships are > > this 'me' figure having communication with 'another person' with is > > _also_ a figure in the same TV screen> > > > Both are MEs > > Relationships are a thinking ME talking to another thinking ME. What is happening in reality is that two separate 'map' makings are going on: the first thinking ME thinks about what the other ME has said and respond to its own thoughts about what the other ME has said, and these thoughts are entirely shaped by the interior and verly limited knowledge/experience map in that same first ME. Similarly, the same separate 'map' making procedure is going on in the the second ME. > > > > >So the intellect is only > > having a communication with itself> > > > No, a ME is talking to a ME. > > The intellect is a part of what makes a ME a ME. Intellectual communication is in reality a ME talking to itself. This is at first very hard to see, because we are so blinded by the intellect who gives us a picture of the 'external world' when in reality that picture is only an internal map inside the same ME. > > > > and even that internal > > communication is just images on a TV screen happening without > a 'me' > > doing anything, becuase the 'me' is a figure _in_ the TV screen > > itself, and the 'me' cannot create itself, it is only a seemingly > > separate part of the TV screen which is result of the universe > itself. > > > A ME is a part of the world, what a ME is is what makes it separate. Yes, I agree. > > > > > > I remember having driven to the office in tired states without > > remembering how I did it. Red lights, changing files, making the > > right turns e t c, all happening automatically! > > > There was still a thinking ME, you cannot drive a car in your sleep, > there was memory loss due to tiredness, inattention or another > reason, but a ME was / is still required. That may be so. I wonder, has there ever been any past? Really? Has there ever been any past, or is the past 'created' in zero seconds right now? We can't know for sure, but my guess is that time begun *now*. > > > > Who is the 'me' making the choice? > > > A ME that *thinks of itself* as such. The ideas of being a doer is not the same as being a doer. The idea of being a creator is not the same as being a creator. > > > > > Things do not arise in the past nor in *our* awareness. > > > > All things arise in this moment in your brain. You do not see the > > brain cells, but instead a picture of the world created by the > visual > > cortex. When you become aware of this picture, it has already been > > processed in a very advanced way. The image from the eyes comes in > to > > the brain upside-down, and there are two images coming in, one from > > each eye. All you see is the past. All you think is the past. All > you > > feel is the past. Isn't that wonderful? :-) > > > Any event, happening, thought or feeling does not arise in the past. > > As events and thoughts arise they arise *as* time. > > What you are calling the past has been created *by* the arising of > any-*thing* no matter how subtle or gross. > > It is not the other way around, time is not an available resource in > which events, happenings and thoughts can arise in 'a' or 'the' past. I believe there is only now, and that the past is only now, created in zero 'seconds' and not created in 15 billion years. What I mean by the past, is the apparent history track in the now. For example, the light from a star is sometimes several years old before it reaches your awareness. The image of the computer screen in front of you is milliseconds old when you become aware of it. You see only the past. So do I. So does everyone. Isn't that a scientific fact? /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Hi again, > > ME is not just the intellect, ME *includes* the intellect. > > Yes, I understand that what you mean by the ME is the total > human 'beingness'. *ME is the mind / body ego that *thinks* ( of itself ) as such* > But that is what thinking is; adding and shuffling concepts around> Any concept or description you have ( of reality ) is a subjectification. Any concept is also an apparent *phenomenon*. Thinking is useful and *necessary* in life, but if *you* are using thinking to try and explain the nature of reality when ( the ME is a part of it ) thinking is itself a phenomenon then it is like rearranging the furniture. Adding more concepts on top of what somebody else has said ( which is itself a subjectification ) is futile because it is just adding more *phenomenon* without the realization that any concept is a phenomena, and each phenomenon is the equivalent distance of truth away in trying to describe something which cannot be described. The ME tries for description but any description is just as much as a phenomenon as the ME itself. > The fact is that thoughts, _all_ thoughts are first processed by the > synapses and neurons in the brain and then appear as an imagage/words > in awareness> What is a thought and what is a thoughts relationship to the human brain? So when a thought lits up in the 'mind', it is already >> old, it has already been created,> Thoughts are not created by a brain. Thoughts do not occurr in the past. >but what fueled the > thought was much older memories and knowledge. So thought is never > new> Thought never arises in the past. Thoughts arise for different reasons and not just because of past memories and knowledge. > The intellect is like a big cloud of thoughts and feelings around me > all the time. At least that is how I experience it.> This is a conceptualization in trying to explain what is happening and it is a ME ( with thinking mind ) that is saying it. Thinking is not around a ME, thinking is a function of a ME, a capacity of a ME. The ME is not a central point around which thinking ( or anything else ) revolves. > And the horrible thing is that it is only the past and future me this > cloud is interested in. It misses the present moment completely> It is the same ME that says so, and the same ME that could change this circumstance, in this way 'you' have no excuse since you have how you are functioning and your behaviour? Or is this your idea of what you think is happening and then try to explain? > This ego cloud is what separates the Self from the Self. How many selves are there? What is the self? > No, it is only thought meeting thought in the same mind. You are > blinded by your own intellect. You are not responding to this post, > you are responding to your own thoughts about this post. Similarly, I > am only responding to my own thoughts about what you have written, it > is only my thoughts having a relation with my thoughts. It took two seperate MEs to write two seperate emails and two seperate MEs are communicating. > > > Even now as I write this, it is only a response to my own > > intellect's > > > thoughts and feelings about your post, it is all an internal > > > communication going on in my mind, > > > > > > A ME is responding to an email. > > It is all going on as a mental thought-process in that ME. It is the > ME in communication with the same ME. >> This is not correct. A ME is not in communication with the same ME. There is not one ME. Again: *What makes a ME what a ME is, is what makes a ME a *seperate* thing* You are conceptualizing about how you *think* ( a ME thinking ) things are happening or how they should happen *if you could provide an explanation* It took two seperate MEs to write the two emails that are being read and there is not one ME in which everything is happening. Every ME is separate and no ME includes another. > A jump is needed. A jump from the intellect to intuition. " There is > no psychological evolution " -- J. Krishnamurti > > 'If we picture..' > > > > This is a conceptualization of what *you* ( a ME ) think a ME is. > > > > ME is not the conceptualization above, a ME is conceptualizing the > > above. > > You can see very clearly by direct observation that thinking is going > on in your mind. This thinking is having a communication with itself. > That is what is happening when it comes to thoughts. Thinking is not communicating with itself. Thinking is a function of a ME. > > Relationships are a thinking ME talking to another thinking ME. > > What is happening in reality is that two separate 'map' makings are > going on: the first thinking ME thinks about what the other ME has > said and respond to its own thoughts about what the other ME has > said, Yes, this is what I meant above also. > > >So the intellect is only > > > having a communication with itself> > > > > > > No, a ME is talking to a ME. > > > > The intellect is a part of what makes a ME a ME. > > Intellectual communication is in reality a ME talking to itself. No, a ME does not talk to itself, MEs are communicating. You are trying to fit reality to how you think it is, but any model is a subjectification and a phenomenon *by* a ME. One ME does not *include* another ME they are always seperate things, that is what makes them a ME. This > is at first very hard to see, because we are so blinded by the > intellect who gives us a picture of the 'external world' when in > reality that picture is only an internal map inside the same ME. No. The world is not inside a ME. As I said before, what makes a ME a ME is what makes a ME *seperate*. > That may be so. I wonder, has there ever been any past? Really? Has > there ever been any past, or is the past 'created' in zero seconds > right now? We can't know for sure, but my guess is that time begun > *now*. The behaviour of the phenomenon ( all of it, no matter how subtle or gross ) is what time is, what creates time. Nothing arises 'in the past', there is a past only as much as there is behaviour of phenomenon. All there is is NOW, which stretches back into the past and forward into the future as a one 'moment' of ALL time. > > > Who is the 'me' making the choice? > > > > > > A ME that *thinks of itself* as such. > > The ideas of being a doer is not the same as being a doer. The idea > of being a creator is not the same as being a creator. > > I believe there is only now, and that the past is only now, created > in zero 'seconds' and not created in 15 billion years. There is only now, yes and with it all time. If it were not for the behaviour of the phenomenon there could not have been a 15 million years ago. Time is not something in which things happen *in*. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > ME is not just the intellect, ME *includes* the intellect. > > > > Yes, I understand that what you mean by the ME is the total > > human 'beingness'. > > > *ME is the mind / body ego that *thinks* ( of itself ) as such* > > > > But that is what thinking is; adding and shuffling concepts around> > > > Any concept or description you have ( of reality ) is a > subjectification. > Any concept is also an apparent *phenomenon*. > > Thinking is useful and *necessary* in life, but if *you* are using > thinking to try and explain the nature of reality when ( the ME is a > part of it ) thinking is itself a phenomenon then it is like > rearranging the furniture. > > Adding more concepts on top of what somebody else has said ( which is > itself a subjectification ) is futile because it is just adding more > *phenomenon* without the realization that any concept is a phenomena, > and each phenomenon is the equivalent distance of truth away in > trying to describe something which cannot be described. > > The ME tries for description but any description is just as much as a > phenomenon as the ME itself. Yes, thinking will go on thinking and that may lead to some understanding, but this understanding will never touch the living moment. > > > > > The fact is that thoughts, _all_ thoughts are first processed by > the > > synapses and neurons in the brain and then appear as an > imagage/words > > in awareness> > > > What is a thought and what is a thoughts relationship to the human > brain? Thought is a reaction from memory to some happening - 'external' or 'internal', such as something heard or seen, or to some feeling. But this is only a coarse description. All thoughts are litterary bathing in a sea of interrelated feelings an memories. Also, thought may not only be an internal process in the brain. Some even say that the human brain is only a passive reciever. If we look at the world as an interrelated quantum energy web then thoughts are ripples in this web. > > > So when a thought lits up in the 'mind', it is already > >> old, it has already been created,> > > > Thoughts are not created by a brain. > Thoughts do not occurr in the past. If there is some non-local correlation going on when a thought happens, then we can say that thoughts are not 'created' only in the brain (and even maybe not at all in the brain), and then we can even say that thoughts are not old, but then we must also see that thoughts are related to more than just the human being and that thinking is indeed happening in a sort of noosphere. See for example: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ Thoughts are only old if we look at it from a traditional mechanical viewpoint. There may be non-local events going on. But I think it is important to notice for oneself that almost all thinking going on is merely a mechanical response based on our conditioned internal memory- map. > > > >but what fueled the > > thought was much older memories and knowledge. So thought is never > > new> > > > Thought never arises in the past. > Thoughts arise for different reasons and not just because of past > memories and knowledge. That may be true, but by observing one's own thoughts it is obvious how almost all of the thinking is old stuff going around, and around... > > > > The intellect is like a big cloud of thoughts and feelings around > me > > all the time. At least that is how I experience it.> > > > This is a conceptualization in trying to explain what is happening > and it is a ME ( with thinking mind ) that is saying it. > > Thinking is not around a ME, thinking is a function of a ME, a > capacity of a ME. > > The ME is not a central point around which thinking ( or anything > else ) revolves. I just described how the intellect feels to me. I am often lost in my own thought-world and miss what is going on around me. Try this: look carefully at an object in the room you are sitting and study its every detail and at the same time try to think about what you shall do tomorrow. Observer how you awareness of the object becomes dim as soon as you focus on your thinking about tomorrow. This dimmin down of the senses is what I meant by the intellect being like a big cloud around/within me. > > > > And the horrible thing is that it is only the past and future me > this > > cloud is interested in. It misses the present moment completely> > > > It is the same ME that says so, and the same ME that could change > this circumstance, in this way 'you' have no excuse since you have > how you are functioning and your behaviour? > > Or is this your idea of what you think is happening and then try to > explain? Can I change this to make myself more aware? I don't think so. Maybe because I don't think I can is what makes me powerless. But it feels like I am completely powerless. If I had power to change myself I would do that. I think it is a myth that an individual person can change him- or herself. I a person changes, then it is the universe that moves in such way. > > > > > This ego cloud is what separates the Self from the Self. > > > How many selves are there? > What is the self? The ego is the false idea of being a separate self. When the ego goes away then only the Self remains. And there is only one Self. > > > > No, it is only thought meeting thought in the same mind. You are > > blinded by your own intellect. You are not responding to this post, > > you are responding to your own thoughts about this post. Similarly, > I > > am only responding to my own thoughts about what you have written, > it > > is only my thoughts having a relation with my thoughts. > > > It took two seperate MEs to write two seperate emails and two > seperate MEs are communicating. Yes, that is what is happening on the surface of it, but I believe there is only one Self in action. The separate ME:s are needed in order for it to be a play. But I think that there is only One PlayStation, and only One Game going on. Not one game for one ME and another game for another ME, but for all practical pursposes, yes, there are ME:s communication with ME:s. There may even be a Noosphere, or a Gaia-ME, a world consciousness that also is involved in communations between ME:s. But seen from God's infinite perspective, no communication is going on at all I believe, but rather 'just' an infinite DVD record being played making _everything_ happen. > > > > > > > Even now as I write this, it is only a response to my own > > > intellect's > > > > thoughts and feelings about your post, it is all an internal > > > > communication going on in my mind, > > > > > > > > > A ME is responding to an email. > > > > It is all going on as a mental thought-process in that ME. It is > the > > ME in communication with the same ME. >> > > > This is not correct. > > A ME is not in communication with the same ME. > > There is not one ME. > > Again: > > *What makes a ME what a ME is, is what makes a ME a *seperate* thing* > > You are conceptualizing about how you *think* ( a ME thinking ) > things are happening or how they should happen *if you could provide > an explanation* > > It took two seperate MEs to write the two emails that are being read > and there is not one ME in which everything is happening. > > Every ME is separate and no ME includes another. On the surface yes, but in reality all are one. > > > > A jump is needed. A jump from the intellect to intuition. " There is > > no psychological evolution " -- J. Krishnamurti > > > 'If we picture..' > > > > > > This is a conceptualization of what *you* ( a ME ) think a ME is. > > > > > > ME is not the conceptualization above, a ME is conceptualizing > the > > > above. > > > > You can see very clearly by direct observation that thinking is > going > > on in your mind. This thinking is having a communication with > itself. > > That is what is happening when it comes to thoughts. > > > Thinking is not communicating with itself. > Thinking is a function of a ME. On the level of intellectual communication there is only thinking communication with itself. For example, a girl says: " I am so in love with my boyfriend " , even though the boyfriend is miles away. So, what she really are in love with is her own thoughts and feelings about her inner memory map of the boyfriend and their future. She is in reality in love with her own ideas and memories and not a person! :-) The same thing happens with all relationships on the thought/emotion level. Of course there may be more deeper communications going on beneath the level of thought. There may be non-local connections happening under the surface of the intellect. But if we cannot feel this deeper communication then relations become an internal process where the ME is having a communication with its own thoughts/feelings/ideas about another ME. A man says that he has a relationship with his mother for example, but all he has on the level of thought is a relation to his own internal thought/memory-map *about* the mother. > > > > > Relationships are a thinking ME talking to another thinking ME. > > > > What is happening in reality is that two separate 'map' makings are > > going on: the first thinking ME thinks about what the other ME has > > said and respond to its own thoughts about what the other ME has > > said, > > > Yes, this is what I meant above also. > > > > > >So the intellect is only > > > > having a communication with itself> > > > > > > > > > No, a ME is talking to a ME. > > > > > > The intellect is a part of what makes a ME a ME. > > > > Intellectual communication is in reality a ME talking to itself. > > > No, a ME does not talk to itself, MEs are communicating. > > You are trying to fit reality to how you think it is, but any model > is a subjectification and a phenomenon *by* a ME. > > One ME does not *include* another ME they are always seperate things, > that is what makes them a ME. On the level of thought a ME is only communicating with his or her memories/ideas/feelings/thoughts *about* other ME:s. > > > > This > > is at first very hard to see, because we are so blinded by the > > intellect who gives us a picture of the 'external world' when in > > reality that picture is only an internal map inside the same ME. > > > No. > The world is not inside a ME. > As I said before, what makes a ME a ME is what makes a ME *seperate*. The world may not be inside a ME, but on the level of thought the world appear to the ME as an internal thought-map. Where is your grandfather now? I can tell you that your grandfather exist as a part of a complex internal thought-map containing memories, experiences and feeling, but it is only an internal map. Another person has a different thought/feeling map and sees your grandfather in a totally different way. Why? Because both you and the other person are not looking at your grandfather. You are both looking at you own separate *images* of your grandfather. > > > > That may be so. I wonder, has there ever been any past? Really? Has > > there ever been any past, or is the past 'created' in zero seconds > > right now? We can't know for sure, but my guess is that time begun > > *now*. > > > The behaviour of the phenomenon ( all of it, no matter how subtle or > gross ) is what time is, what creates time. Nothing arises 'in the > past', there is a past only as much as there is behaviour of > phenomenon. > All there is is NOW, which stretches back into the past and forward > into the future as a one 'moment' of ALL time. It is not possible to strech back the past into infinity unless that infinity is NOW. Then this means that there never has been a past other than now. This is fashinating because then there has never been any yesterday, because yesterday is only now. > > > > > > Who is the 'me' making the choice? > > > > > > > > > A ME that *thinks of itself* as such. > > > > The ideas of being a doer is not the same as being a doer. The idea > > of being a creator is not the same as being a creator. > > > > I believe there is only now, and that the past is only now, created > > in zero 'seconds' and not created in 15 billion years. > > > There is only now, yes and with it all time. If it were not for the > behaviour of the phenomenon there could not have been a 15 million > years ago. Time is not something in which things happen *in*. So the 15 billion years ago is now. There has never been a yesterday other that the memory we have of it today! /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Hello, > > The ME tries for description but any description is just as much as > a > > phenomenon as the ME itself. > > Yes, thinking will go on thinking and that may lead to some > understanding, but this understanding will never touch the living > moment. Thinking binds a ME. Thinking and intellectualizing *can* help immensely so long as it is completely abandoned as a means for realization. > Thought is a reaction from memory to some happening - 'external' > or 'internal', such as something heard or seen, or to some feeling. > But this is only a coarse description. Thoughts are not solely reactions. In most peoples day to day life their thinking processes and thus behaviour etc is reactionary, mindfulness is the complete opposite of this. So whilst thinking *can be* reactionary in most people, it is wrong to say that all thinking is merely reaction because thinking in others can be quite different. 'Mindfulness is plain English' is a great book which does a good job of explaining this, not only for 'mindfulness' but meditation practice. I don't know if you have heard of another book called 'Concentration' by Ernest Wood, it is excellent. It has many exercises which lead to insight about this and the nature of mind and thinking. Here is the amazon link if you are interested; http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- /0835601765/qid=1089624058/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/102-6590525-0384151? v=glance & s=books >Some even say that > the human brain is only a passive reciever. Yes, a receiver of thoughts which are just as real as a chair. But I think it is > important to notice for oneself that almost all thinking going on is > merely a mechanical response based on our conditioned internal memory- > map. Yes, it is important like we were saying that every reflected self has an inherentness of personal bias based on past experiences etc within them and this inherentness is also 'there' even in ''''enlightened'''' persons. But remember that not all thinking is reactionary or mechanical, this is what seperates us from animals and what further up the line seperates a 'normal' person from a 'sage' or someone who understands how their mind works. > > Thought never arises in the past. > > Thoughts arise for different reasons and not just because of past > > memories and knowledge. > > That may be true, but by observing one's own thoughts it is obvious > how almost all of the thinking is old stuff going around, and > around... Yes, with most people this is true, they are on autopilot, and thinking is reactionary. The difference is how much of an understanding one has of mind and the way it works. > > The ME is not a central point around which thinking ( or anything > > else ) revolves. > > I just described how the intellect feels to me. I am often lost in my > own thought-world and miss what is going on around me. It is only the ME that is trying to describe this ( the thinking process ) > > It is the same ME that says so, and the same ME that could change > > this circumstance, in this way 'you' have no excuse since you have > > how you are functioning and your behaviour? > > > > Or is this your idea of what you think is happening and then try to > > explain? > > Can I change this to make myself more aware? I don't think so. What do you mean by *myself* and *aware*? If by myself you mean the mind / body ME you can change yourself since you have noted and recognized your own behaviour / thinking. >Maybe > because I don't think I can is what makes me powerless. But it feels > like I am completely powerless. If I had power to change myself I > would do that> You do have the power to change yourself. > think it is a myth that an individual person can > change him- or herself. I a person changes, then it is the universe > that moves in such way. People do have the power to change themselves, they are changing themselves all the time. And most of the time they are not even aware of it. When a person changes or a ME wills the universe also changes the *whole* changes, but neither the universe changing nor the ME willing is the *cause* of the other, they are *one*. You cannot state one preference and exclude the other because it is a ME that splits one into two. In other words you cannot say that the universe changing is the *cause* of a ME changing or the ME changing is the cause of the universe changing. This is law of excluded middle that I keep mentioning. > > > This ego cloud is what separates the Self from the Self. > > > > > > How many selves are there? > > What is the self? > > The ego is the false idea of being a separate self. When the ego goes > away then only the Self remains. And there is only one Self. The ego never goes away, it is 'still there', it is also *necessary*. What is the Self? > Yes, that is what is happening on the surface of it, but I believe > there is only one Self in action. The separate ME:s are needed in > order for it to be a play. Seperate things are a part of what makes the whole what it is. I think that there is only One > PlayStation, and only One Game going on> There is only one self existent whole yes. one game for one ME and > another game for another ME, but for all practical pursposes, yes, > there are ME:s communication with ME:s.> The ME and its thinking and experience are different for each ME. There may even be a > Noosphere, or a Gaia-ME, a world consciousness that also is involved > in communations between ME:s. There are many 'Gods' and / or levels of consciousness. But seen from God's infinite > perspective, no communication is going on at all I believe, but > rather 'just' an infinite DVD record being played making _everything_ > happen. The only perspective 'a God' has or can have is a finite or partial one. To a reflected self something is done through someONE. To the unity nothing is done through noONE. I assume by 'God' above you mean wholeness. > > Every ME is separate and no ME includes another. > > On the surface yes, but in reality all are one. All are not one ( thing ) This is the problem is saying something is a certain way to the exclusion of another. There is wholeness and what makes the wholeness what it is / or there is a self existent whole and there is what that self existent whole is. Everything is not *one*. > > Thinking is not communicating with itself. > > Thinking is a function of a ME. > > On the level of intellectual communication there is only thinking > communication with itself. For example, a girl says: " I am so in love > with my boyfriend " , even though the boyfriend is miles away. So, what > she really are in love with is her own thoughts and feelings about > her inner memory map of the boyfriend and their future. She is in > reality in love with her own ideas and memories and not a person! :- Thinking is a function and not something that communicates with itself. The thoughts and ideas about her boyfriend are the expression of her ( a ME ) interacting with another ME, emotions are the feelings themselves, she is not in love with these feelings. > The same thing happens with all relationships on the thought/emotion > level. Of course there may be more deeper communications going on > beneath the level of thought. There may be non-local connections > happening under the surface of the intellect. But if we cannot feel > this deeper communication then relations become an internal process > where the ME is having a communication with its own > thoughts/feelings/ideas about another ME. A man says that he has a > relationship with his mother for example, but all he has on the level > of thought is a relation to his own internal thought/memory-map > *about* the mother. > On the level of thought a ME is only communicating with his or her > memories/ideas/feelings/thoughts *about* other ME:s. A ME does not communicate with its own feelings and intellect. The feelings and intellect are the ME. > > The world may not be inside a ME, but on the level of thought the > world appear to the ME as an internal thought-map> Thinking about the world is unique to each ME, but the world does not appear as thinking. >Where is your > grandfather now? I can tell you that your grandfather exist as a part > of a complex internal thought-map containing memories, experiences > and feeling, but it is only an internal map> Yes, and this goes for any*thing* each ME has a unique viewpoint which includes the particular MEs inherentness or personal bias. Another person has a > different thought/feeling map and sees your grandfather in a totally > different way> Yes. Why? Because both you and the other person are not > looking at your grandfather. You are both looking at you own separate > *images* of your grandfather. Yes, each has a unique perspective. > It is not possible to strech back the past into infinity unless that > infinity is NOW. *Now* includes all time, past present and future. When a ME talks about 'now' they usually mean a moment *IN* time. *NOW* with capitals, includes all time and is not *within* time. Then this means that there never has been a past > other than now> All of what we call the past has occurred within the *same now* but it is not the *now* that a ME marks as moment *in* time. NOW has nothing at all to do with time. NOW has '''more to do with *space*''' >This is fashinating because then there has never been > any yesterday, because yesterday is only now. There has been a yesterday. >> So the 15 billion years ago is now. No, 15 billion years ago is exactly 15 billion years ago. When we say now, we mark time as a moment IN time, NOW is not IN time. NOW has nothing to do with time. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hello, > > > > The ME tries for description but any description is just as much > as > > a > > > phenomenon as the ME itself. > > > > Yes, thinking will go on thinking and that may lead to some > > understanding, but this understanding will never touch the living > > moment. > > > Thinking binds a ME. > > Thinking and intellectualizing *can* help immensely so long as it is > completely abandoned as a means for realization. > > > > > Thought is a reaction from memory to some happening - 'external' > > or 'internal', such as something heard or seen, or to some feeling. > > But this is only a coarse description. > > > Thoughts are not solely reactions. > In most peoples day to day life their thinking processes and thus > behaviour etc is reactionary, mindfulness is the complete opposite of > this. > > So whilst thinking *can be* reactionary in most people, it is wrong > to say that all thinking is merely reaction because thinking in > others can be quite different. > > 'Mindfulness is plain English' is a great book which does a good job > of explaining this, not only for 'mindfulness' but meditation > practice. > > I don't know if you have heard of another book called 'Concentration' > by Ernest Wood, it is excellent. > > It has many exercises which lead to insight about this and the nature > of mind and thinking. > > Here is the amazon link if you are interested; > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- > /0835601765/qid=1089624058/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/102-6590525-0384151? > v=glance & s=books Thanks. Yes thought may be more than just a reactional response to memory. But to come to a state of non-waiting as Eckhart Tolle talks about, then the limitation and fragmentation of thought must be recognized I believe. > > > >Some even say that > > the human brain is only a passive reciever. > > > Yes, a receiver of thoughts which are just as real as a chair. > > > But I think it is > > important to notice for oneself that almost all thinking going on > is > > merely a mechanical response based on our conditioned internal > memory- > > map. > > > Yes, it is important like we were saying that every reflected self > has an inherentness of personal bias based on past experiences etc > within them and this inherentness is also 'there' even > in ''''enlightened'''' persons. > But remember that not all thinking is reactionary or mechanical, this > is what seperates us from animals and what further up the line > seperates a 'normal' person from a 'sage' or someone who understands > how their mind works. I like the description J. Krishnamurti says that there is a state of mind that does not need to protect itself, a state of mind that needs no security at all! This is hard to believe for me, but it sounds good. No security at all? No fear at all? Sound impossible to my mind, unless that same mind goes through some kind of transformation. > > > > > Thought never arises in the past. > > > Thoughts arise for different reasons and not just because of past > > > memories and knowledge. > > > > That may be true, but by observing one's own thoughts it is obvious > > how almost all of the thinking is old stuff going around, and > > around... > > > Yes, with most people this is true, they are on autopilot, and > thinking is reactionary. > The difference is how much of an understanding one has of mind and > the way it works. Yes, when one begins to see the workings of one's own mind, then a change begins to happen. This is at least how I experience it. > > > > > The ME is not a central point around which thinking ( or anything > > > else ) revolves. > > > > I just described how the intellect feels to me. I am often lost in > my > > own thought-world and miss what is going on around me. > > > It is only the ME that is trying to describe this ( the thinking > process ) > > > > > It is the same ME that says so, and the same ME that could change > > > this circumstance, in this way 'you' have no excuse since you > have > > how you are functioning and your behaviour? > > > > > > Or is this your idea of what you think is happening and then try > to > > > explain? > > > > Can I change this to make myself more aware? I don't think so. > > > What do you mean by *myself* and *aware*? > > If by myself you mean the mind / body ME you can change yourself > since you have noted and recognized your own behaviour / thinking. Yes, the processes in me which are my will and thinking and so on may alter other processes and themselves so that something change in me. Me as an observer cannot change anything. > > > >Maybe > > because I don't think I can is what makes me powerless. But it > feels > > like I am completely powerless. If I had power to change myself I > > would do that> > > You do have the power to change yourself. > > > think it is a myth that an individual person can > > change him- or herself. I a person changes, then it is the universe > > that moves in such way. > > > People do have the power to change themselves, they are changing > themselves all the time. And most of the time they are not even aware > of it. > > When a person changes or a ME wills the universe also changes the > *whole* changes, but neither the universe changing nor the ME willing > is the *cause* of the other, they are *one*. > > You cannot state one preference and exclude the other because it is a > ME that splits one into two. In other words you cannot say that the > universe changing is the *cause* of a ME changing or the ME changing > is the cause of the universe changing. > > This is law of excluded middle that I keep mentioning. You cannot first divide whole of existence and say that the parts act on their own, and then say that the whole act on its own too! Why do we need to divide the single wholeness acting? It's like saying that a certain wave in an ocean can change itself. It is the ocean and the weather that changes the wave, the wave cannot change itself!!!!! > > > > > > This ego cloud is what separates the Self from the Self. > > > > > > > > > How many selves are there? > > > What is the self? > > > > The ego is the false idea of being a separate self. When the ego > goes > > away then only the Self remains. And there is only one Self. > > > The ego never goes away, it is 'still there', it is also *necessary*. > > What is the Self? The Self is oneness experiencing itself in many unique viewpoints. Each of these viewpoint are 'only' facets in the same Self. So you are one facet, and I am another facet. > > > > Yes, that is what is happening on the surface of it, but I believe > > there is only one Self in action. The separate ME:s are needed in > > order for it to be a play. > > > Seperate things are a part of what makes the whole what it is. There are no separate things other than as ideas in our minds, and even these ideas are not separate things, only totally interconnected facets in the one Self. > > > I think that there is only One > > PlayStation, and only One Game going on> > > There is only one self existent whole yes. > > > one game for one ME and > > another game for another ME, but for all practical pursposes, yes, > > there are ME:s communication with ME:s.> > > > The ME and its thinking and experience are different for each ME. > > > There may even be a > > Noosphere, or a Gaia-ME, a world consciousness that also is > involved > > in communations between ME:s. > > There are many 'Gods' and / or levels of consciousness. > > > But seen from God's infinite > > perspective, no communication is going on at all I believe, but > > rather 'just' an infinite DVD record being played making > _everything_ > > happen. > > > The only perspective 'a God' has or can have is a finite or partial > one. > > To a reflected self something is done through someONE. > To the unity nothing is done through noONE. > > I assume by 'God' above you mean wholeness. > > > > > Every ME is separate and no ME includes another. > > > > On the surface yes, but in reality all are one. > > > All are not one ( thing ) > This is the problem is saying something is a certain way to the > exclusion of another. > > There is wholeness and what makes the wholeness what it is / or there > is a self existent whole and there is what that self existent whole > is. > > Everything is not *one*. Everything is no-thing happening. > > > > > Thinking is not communicating with itself. > > > Thinking is a function of a ME. > > > > On the level of intellectual communication there is only thinking > > communication with itself. For example, a girl says: " I am so in > love > > with my boyfriend " , even though the boyfriend is miles away. So, > what > > she really are in love with is her own thoughts and feelings about > > her inner memory map of the boyfriend and their future. She is in > > reality in love with her own ideas and memories and not a person! :- > > > Thinking is a function and not something that communicates with > itself. > > The thoughts and ideas about her boyfriend are the expression of her > ( a ME ) interacting with another ME, emotions are the feelings > themselves, she is not in love with these feelings. Her intellect is in love with those feelings created in union with her own thought-map about the boyfriend. It's an internal process on the level of thought/emotion. > > > The same thing happens with all relationships on the > thought/emotion > > level. Of course there may be more deeper communications going on > > beneath the level of thought. There may be non-local connections > > happening under the surface of the intellect. But if we cannot feel > > this deeper communication then relations become an internal process > > where the ME is having a communication with its own > > thoughts/feelings/ideas about another ME. A man says that he has a > > relationship with his mother for example, but all he has on the > level > > of thought is a relation to his own internal thought/memory-map > > *about* the mother. > > > On the level of thought a ME is only communicating with his or her > > memories/ideas/feelings/thoughts *about* other ME:s. > > A ME does not communicate with its own feelings and intellect. > The feelings and intellect are the ME. > > > > > The world may not be inside a ME, but on the level of thought the > > world appear to the ME as an internal thought-map> > > > Thinking about the world is unique to each ME, but the world does not > appear as thinking. > > >Where is your > > grandfather now? I can tell you that your grandfather exist as a > part > > of a complex internal thought-map containing memories, experiences > > and feeling, but it is only an internal map> > > > Yes, and this goes for any*thing* each ME has a unique viewpoint > which includes the particular MEs inherentness or personal bias. > > Another person has a > > different thought/feeling map and sees your grandfather in a > totally > > different way> > > Yes. > > Why? Because both you and the other person are not > > looking at your grandfather. You are both looking at you own > separate > > *images* of your grandfather. > > > Yes, each has a unique perspective. > > > It is not possible to strech back the past into infinity unless > that > > infinity is NOW. > > > *Now* includes all time, past present and future. > > When a ME talks about 'now' they usually mean a moment *IN* time. > > *NOW* with capitals, includes all time and is not *within* time. > > Then this means that there never has been a past > > other than now> > > All of what we call the past has occurred within the *same now* but > it is not the *now* that a ME marks as moment *in* time. > > NOW has nothing at all to do with time. > > NOW has '''more to do with *space*''' > > >This is fashinating because then there has never been > > any yesterday, because yesterday is only now. > > > There has been a yesterday. > > >> So the 15 billion years ago is now. > > No, 15 billion years ago is exactly 15 billion years ago. > > When we say now, we mark time as a moment IN time, NOW is not IN > time. NOW has nothing to do with time. There is no NOW and a separate now. There is only Now, and yesterday is only a memory in this Now. There is no 15 billion years ago other than as a history track created Now in the 'time' span of zero 'seconds'. The idea that there is an actual past is today's " flat earth " theory. You have never been asleep! What you call deep dreamless sleep is not the absence of awareness but only a memory in the Now. The memory of an absence is not the same as absence itself. /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Hello, > Thanks. Yes thought may be more than just a reactional response to > memory. But to come to a state of non-waiting as Eckhart Tolle talks > about, then the limitation and fragmentation of thought must be > recognized I believe. > > But remember that not all thinking is reactionary or mechanical, > this > > is what seperates us from animals and what further up the line > > seperates a 'normal' person from a 'sage' or someone who > understands > > how their mind works. > > I like the description J. Krishnamurti says that there is a state of > mind that does not need to protect itself, a state of mind that needs > no security at all! This is hard to believe for me, but it sounds > good. No security at all? No fear at all? Sound impossible to my > mind, unless that same mind goes through some kind of transformation. What he calls a state of mind could also be called an understanding of mind, or the understanding that follows from knowing how mind works and acting 'from there'. What is fear and who experiences it? Is that WHO what you are? > > The difference is how much of an understanding one has of mind and > > the way it works. > > Yes, when one begins to see the workings of one's own mind, then a > change begins to happen. This is at least how I experience it. Yes. > > If by myself you mean the mind / body ME you can change yourself > > since you have noted and recognized your own behaviour / thinking. > > Yes, the processes in me which are my will and thinking and so on may > alter other processes and themselves so that something change in me. > Me as an observer cannot change anything. What observer? > > When a person changes or a ME wills the universe also changes the > > *whole* changes, but neither the universe changing nor the ME > willing > > is the *cause* of the other, they are *one*. > > > > You cannot state one preference and exclude the other because it is > a > > ME that splits one into two. In other words you cannot say that the > > universe changing is the *cause* of a ME changing or the ME > changing > > is the cause of the universe changing. > > > > This is law of excluded middle that I keep mentioning. > > You cannot first divide whole of existence and say that the parts act > on their own, and then say that the whole act on its own too! The whole does not act on its own and can't. A ME willing and the unity functioning are not two. This is split into two by a thinking ME. See next 3 points below. Why do > we need to divide the single wholeness acting?> The whole can't act, will, make a decision or think. Oneness or wholeness 'acting' IS the *way* it IS because of infinite reflections within it, ( if you ) could remove a particle the whole would not be, every reflection interacts and makes the whole what it is. When a human being wills the unity is functioning and there is no *contradiction* in these two ( ONE ) The problem is if one of these two ( which are one ) is said to be the only one to the exclusion of the existence of the other. >It's like saying that > a certain wave in an ocean can change itself> A wave is different to a creature of mind / body and an ocean is not comparable to reality. Metaphors are useful in explaining *some* things but they cannot be used as *evidence* for the way reality is. You can't drive on a map to get where you want to go. The change that individuals MEs make and DO is the *WAY of the whole* >It is the ocean and the > weather that changes the wave, the wave cannot change itself!!!!! The above is the dividing of one thing into two that I mentioned above, law of excluded middle; A ME selects between unity functioning *only* and the reflected self willing and *chooses* which one it believes to be correct assuming then that the *choice* of one *excludes* the validity or existence of the other. These are not two things *except* in the sense of a mind ( ME ) which divides and then chooses. **The whole cannot think, act or DO. The whole is the WAY it IS because of the interaction of reflected selves who think and act** > > What is the Self? > > The Self is oneness experiencing itself in many unique viewpoints> Does the Self have a viewpoint? > Each of these viewpoint are 'only' facets in the same Self. So you > are one facet, and I am another facet. You and me are not viewpoints. > > Seperate things are a part of what makes the whole what it is. > > There are no separate things other than as ideas in our minds, and > even these ideas are not separate things, only totally interconnected > facets in the one Self. There are seperate things, even thoughts and ideas are seperate *things*. Everything is inter-related yes. > > Everything is not *one*. > > Everything is no-thing happening. Everything *IS* > > The thoughts and ideas about her boyfriend are the expression of > her > > ( a ME ) interacting with another ME, emotions are the feelings > > themselves, she is not in love with these feelings. > > Her intellect is in love with those feelings created in union with > her own thought-map about the boyfriend. It's an internal process on > the level of thought/emotion. Her intellect is not in love with anything, her intellect cannot be in love with anything. > > When we say now, we mark time as a moment IN time, NOW is not IN > > time. NOW has nothing to do with time. > > There is no NOW and a separate now> When a ME speaks about now as a moment it is marking now *within* time. When sages and others speak about the *eternal NOW* it has nothing to do with time. These two are not the same. The former is a moment in conventional time, the latter is what all time 'occurrs in'. >There is only Now, and yesterday > is only a memory in this Now. NOW, the eternal now, includes all time yes. >There is no 15 billion years ago other > than as a history track created Now in the 'time' span of > zero 'seconds'> There is a 15 billion years ago, and there is a yesterday that is what a 'history track' is. The behaviour of the phenomenon is time. >The idea that there is an actual past is > today's " flat earth " theory> There is an actual past, every phenomenon makes the past what it is. <You have never been asleep! > Yes, I have, and sleeping is another thing that creates time. Any happening stirs time ( makes the past what it is ) What you > call deep dreamless sleep is not the absence of awareness but only a > memory in the Now> Everything including sleep is a 'track' in the eternal NOW stretching 'back into the past' and 'forward into the future'. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hello, > > > Thanks. Yes thought may be more than just a reactional response to > > memory. But to come to a state of non-waiting as Eckhart Tolle > talks > > about, then the limitation and fragmentation of thought must be > > recognized I believe. > > > > But remember that not all thinking is reactionary or mechanical, > > this > > > is what seperates us from animals and what further up the line > > > seperates a 'normal' person from a 'sage' or someone who > > understands > > > how their mind works. > > > > I like the description J. Krishnamurti says that there is a state > of > > mind that does not need to protect itself, a state of mind that > needs > > no security at all! This is hard to believe for me, but it sounds > > good. No security at all? No fear at all? Sound impossible to my > > mind, unless that same mind goes through some kind of > transformation. > > > What he calls a state of mind could also be called an understanding > of mind, or the understanding that follows from knowing how mind > works and acting 'from there'. > > What is fear and who experiences it? > Is that WHO what you are? > > > > > The difference is how much of an understanding one has of mind > and > > > the way it works. > > > > Yes, when one begins to see the workings of one's own mind, then a > > change begins to happen. This is at least how I experience it. > > Yes. > > > > > If by myself you mean the mind / body ME you can change yourself > > > since you have noted and recognized your own behaviour / thinking. > > > > Yes, the processes in me which are my will and thinking and so on > may > > alter other processes and themselves so that something change in > me. > > Me as an observer cannot change anything. > > > What observer? Pure awareness. > > > > > When a person changes or a ME wills the universe also changes the > > > *whole* changes, but neither the universe changing nor the ME > > willing > > > is the *cause* of the other, they are *one*. > > > > > > You cannot state one preference and exclude the other because it > is > > a > > > ME that splits one into two. In other words you cannot say that > the > > > universe changing is the *cause* of a ME changing or the ME > > changing > > > is the cause of the universe changing. > > > > > > This is law of excluded middle that I keep mentioning. > > > > You cannot first divide whole of existence and say that the parts > act > > on their own, and then say that the whole act on its own too! > > > The whole does not act on its own and can't. > > A ME willing and the unity functioning are not two. > > This is split into two by a thinking ME. > > See next 3 points below. > > > Why do > > we need to divide the single wholeness acting?> > > > The whole can't act, will, make a decision or think. > > Oneness or wholeness 'acting' IS the *way* it IS because of infinite > reflections within it, ( if you ) could remove a particle the whole > would not be, every reflection interacts and makes the whole what it > is. When a human being wills the unity is functioning and there is no > *contradiction* in these two ( ONE ) > > The problem is if one of these two ( which are one ) is said to be > the only one to the exclusion of the existence of the other. No-thing is happening. That's all there is and withing that there is the whole display of Maya. > > > >It's like saying that > > a certain wave in an ocean can change itself> > > A wave is different to a creature of mind / body and an ocean is not > comparable to reality. > Metaphors are useful in explaining *some* things but they cannot be > used as *evidence* for the way reality is. > You can't drive on a map to get where you want to go. > > The change that individuals MEs make and DO is the *WAY of the whole* No explanations can be evidence for what reality is, for the explanations themselves are already reality. > > > >It is the ocean and the > > weather that changes the wave, the wave cannot change itself!!!!! > > > The above is the dividing of one thing into two that I mentioned > above, law of excluded middle; > > A ME selects between unity functioning *only* and the reflected self > willing and *chooses* which one it believes to be correct assuming > then that the *choice* of one *excludes* the validity or existence of > the other. These are not two things *except* in the sense of a mind ( > ME ) which divides and then chooses. > > **The whole cannot think, act or DO. > > The whole is the WAY it IS because of the interaction of reflected > selves who think and act** No on can do anything. It is totality unfolding that is the 'doer' but there is really no doing gouing on. No-thing is happening, that is all. > > > > > What is the Self? > > > > The Self is oneness experiencing itself in many unique viewpoints> > > Does the Self have a viewpoint? You as you experience yourself is such viewpoint. As a 'point' the ME is nothing in itself, it is just a unique 'point' in the Self. > > > > Each of these viewpoint are 'only' facets in the same Self. So you > > are one facet, and I am another facet. > > > You and me are not viewpoints. This is a way of describing the total interconnectedness of all 'things'. Everything is connected with everythingf else. There are no separate objects in the form of separate 'things' or made of atoms in the form of tiny billiard balls. > > > > > Seperate things are a part of what makes the whole what it is. > > > > There are no separate things other than as ideas in our minds, and > > even these ideas are not separate things, only totally > interconnected > > facets in the one Self. > > > There are seperate things, even thoughts and ideas are seperate > *things*. > > Everything is inter-related yes. > > > > > Everything is not *one*. > > > > Everything is no-thing happening. > > Everything *IS* > > > > > The thoughts and ideas about her boyfriend are the expression of > > her > > > ( a ME ) interacting with another ME, emotions are the feelings > > > themselves, she is not in love with these feelings. > > > > Her intellect is in love with those feelings created in union with > > her own thought-map about the boyfriend. It's an internal process > on > > the level of thought/emotion. > > Her intellect is not in love with anything, her intellect cannot be > in love with anything. It is the intellect in the form of thought in relation to emotions that create the sensation of love on the level of thought. > > > > > When we say now, we mark time as a moment IN time, NOW is not IN > > > time. NOW has nothing to do with time. > > > > There is no NOW and a separate now> > > > When a ME speaks about now as a moment it is marking now *within* > time. This is only ideas (memories) observed. Time has no reality outside thought and emotion. Feeling is timeless. > > When sages and others speak about the *eternal NOW* it has nothing to > do with time. > > These two are not the same. > > The former is a moment in conventional time, the latter is what all > time 'occurrs in'. > > > >There is only Now, and yesterday > > is only a memory in this Now. > > NOW, the eternal now, includes all time yes. > > > >There is no 15 billion years ago other > > than as a history track created Now in the 'time' span of > > zero 'seconds'> > > There is a 15 billion years ago, and there is a yesterday that is > what a 'history track' is. But can you see the possibility that you have never been asleep? That awareness maybe always is in a state of 'ON'? > > The behaviour of the phenomenon is time. > > > >The idea that there is an actual past is > > today's " flat earth " theory> > > There is an actual past, every phenomenon makes the past what it is. The past is there, but only as a memory track. > > > <You have never been asleep! > > > Yes, I have, and sleeping is another thing that creates time. > Any happening stirs time ( makes the past what it is ) > > > What you > > call deep dreamless sleep is not the absence of awareness but only > a > > memory in the Now> > > > Everything including sleep is a 'track' in the eternal NOW > stretching 'back into the past' and 'forward into the future'. Yes, but can you see the implications of this? That you have never existed yesterday, that there is no such thing as yesterday _other_ _than_ as a history track created now? /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Hi again, > > What observer? > > Pure awareness. If 'pure awareness' is the observer what does it observe? > > The whole can't act, will, make a decision or think. > > > > Oneness or wholeness 'acting' IS the *way* it IS because of > infinite > > reflections within it, ( if you ) could remove a particle the whole > > would not be, every reflection interacts and makes the whole what > it > > is. When a human being wills the unity is functioning and there is > no > > *contradiction* in these two ( ONE ) > > > > The problem is if one of these two ( which are one ) is said to be > > the only one to the exclusion of the existence of the other. > > No-thing is happening. That's all there is and withing that there is > the whole display of Maya. Nothing is happening yet there is the whole display of Maya? Maya is a concept used in specific instances to try and describe the nature of reality or it's inherent unreality of objects existing as things in themselves, like that wonderful end piece of the Diamond Sutra; " Thus shall you think of all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream; A flash of lightening in a summer cloud, A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream. " There is no denial of happening. > No explanations can be evidence for what reality is, for the > explanations themselves are already reality. Yes, same with any *thought* whatsoever or any*thing* no matter how subtle. > > **The whole cannot think, act or DO. > > > > The whole is the WAY it IS because of the interaction of reflected > > selves who think and act** > > No on can do anything. The no-one that you are speaking of is the only thing that *can* It is totality unfolding that is the 'doer' > but there is really no doing gouing on> The totality cannot DO. The totality IS ( the *way* ) >No-thing is happening, that > is all. Things are happening. > > > > What is the Self? > > > > > > The Self is oneness experiencing itself in many unique viewpoints> > > > > Does the Self have a viewpoint? > > You as you experience yourself is such viewpoint> Is a ME a viewpoint of the Self? >As a 'point' the ME > is nothing in itself, it is just a unique 'point' in the Self> The ME is something, it is not a point. Can something be in 'the Self'? > > You and me are not viewpoints. > > This is a way of describing the total interconnectedness of > all 'things'. Everything is connected with everythingf else. There > are no separate objects in the form of separate 'things' or made of > atoms in the form of tiny billiard balls. Yes, seperation is *Impossible*, there is no such thing. > > Her intellect is not in love with anything, her intellect cannot be > > in love with anything. > > It is the intellect in the form of thought in relation to emotions > that create the sensation of love on the level of thought. Yes, her emotions are related to her thoughts. > > When a ME speaks about now as a moment it is marking now *within* > > time. > > This is only ideas (memories) observed> When a ME says 'now' meaning right now looking at a clock and starting a race or timing something, it is different to the eternal NOW that is spoken of as containing all time. When someone says start running 'now' it is always a moment within *phenomenon* and always IN time. When a sage say the eternal now, he or she means the arena in which all time is played out and which makes conventional time 'possible'. Time has no reality outside > thought and emotion. Feeling is timeless.> Feelings / emotions are within time. > > But can you see the possibility that you have never been asleep? A ME does sleep. That > awareness maybe always is in a state of 'ON'? Yes. > > Everything including sleep is a 'track' in the eternal NOW > > stretching 'back into the past' and 'forward into the future'. > > Yes, but can you see the implications of this? That you have never > existed yesterday> The personal self does exist over time including yesterday. that there is no such thing as yesterday _other_ > _than_ as a history track created now? There is such a thing as yesterday, and it is exactly yesterday away. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > What observer? > > > > Pure awareness. > > If 'pure awareness' is the observer what does it observe? > > > > > The whole can't act, will, make a decision or think. > > > > > > Oneness or wholeness 'acting' IS the *way* it IS because of > > infinite > > > reflections within it, ( if you ) could remove a particle the > whole > > > would not be, every reflection interacts and makes the whole what > > it > > > is. When a human being wills the unity is functioning and there > is > > no > > > *contradiction* in these two ( ONE ) > > > > > > The problem is if one of these two ( which are one ) is said to > be > > > the only one to the exclusion of the existence of the other. > > > > No-thing is happening. That's all there is and withing that there > is > > the whole display of Maya. > > > Nothing is happening yet there is the whole display of Maya? > > Maya is a concept used in specific instances to try and describe the > nature of reality or it's inherent unreality of objects existing as > things in themselves, like that wonderful end piece of the Diamond > Sutra; > > " Thus shall you think of all this fleeting world: > A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream; > A flash of lightening in a summer cloud, > A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream. " > > There is no denial of happening. No denial whatsoever. Maya *is* the happening. This is the Timeless Matrix in action. Nothing ever changes. Nothing is being created or destroyed. It's all there in the infinite DVD record of everything that can possibly be, it is all there, already complete. > > > > > No explanations can be evidence for what reality is, for the > > explanations themselves are already reality. > > Yes, same with any *thought* whatsoever or any*thing* no matter how > subtle. > > > > > **The whole cannot think, act or DO. > > > > > > The whole is the WAY it IS because of the interaction of > reflected > > > selves who think and act** > > > > No on can do anything. > > The no-one that you are speaking of is the only thing that *can* There is the appearance of doing, just as when we play a computer game there is the appearance of doing stuff, but the computer game is changeless. Similarly the Game of life is changeless. The information about everything already exists and is changeless. This information is being experienced right now, by us. And what are we? We are this information being experienced! Changelessly! > > > It is totality unfolding that is the 'doer' > > but there is really no doing gouing on> > > The totality cannot DO. > The totality IS ( the *way* ) > > >No-thing is happening, that > > is all. > > Things are happening. > > > > > > > What is the Self? > > > > > > > > The Self is oneness experiencing itself in many unique > viewpoints> > > > > > > Does the Self have a viewpoint? > > > > You as you experience yourself is such viewpoint> > > Is a ME a viewpoint of the Self? Exactly! Or a viewpoint 'in' the Self. This is just a concept, but what I am pointing to is that the Self is all there is. I prefer sometimes to call the Self the Timeless Matrix, because the word 'Self' can be mistaken to mean many Selves. Reality is One. Me and my Father are one, Jesus said. What he meant was: I am the Self, or I am the Timeless Matrix. > > > >As a 'point' the ME > > is nothing in itself, it is just a unique 'point' in the Self> > > The ME is something, it is not a point. > > Can something be in 'the Self'? We can use another word instead of the Self to make it more impersonal. All there is is the Timeless Matrix. This Matrix exists complete and forever unchanging in this now moment. Picture this Matrix as a crystal ball containing everything in a changeless state. This crystal ball is aware of itself, i.e. the Matrix is aware of itself in its entirety all the 'time'. So, then if this Matrix is everything, then who am I with a human body, memories and all of that stuff? The answer is that the Matrix is everything and so there cannot be everything *plus* me. I, my body, my memories, my mind, my country, the earth, the Milky Way and all other galaxies out there appear as an experience in one single point in the crystal ball. So, 'me', Anders living in Sweden in the year 2004 now, is just a single point, a viewpoint in this Matrix. The experience of one such point leads automatically, timelessly, changelessly, to the experience of another point resulting in the experience of time flowing. One point leads to another point leading to another point, infinitely fast. And all of this is happening changelessly now. :-) Of course the crystal ball is just a picture. The Timeless Matrix has no size, form or substance. Some people call this Matrix consciousness, and say that consciousness is all there is, or the Mind of God, or Brahma, or whatever. > > > > > You and me are not viewpoints. > > > > This is a way of describing the total interconnectedness of > > all 'things'. Everything is connected with everythingf else. There > > are no separate objects in the form of separate 'things' or made of > > atoms in the form of tiny billiard balls. > > > Yes, seperation is *Impossible*, there is no such thing. > > > > > > Her intellect is not in love with anything, her intellect cannot > be > > > in love with anything. > > > > It is the intellect in the form of thought in relation to emotions > > that create the sensation of love on the level of thought. > > > Yes, her emotions are related to her thoughts. > > > > > When a ME speaks about now as a moment it is marking now *within* > > > time. > > > > This is only ideas (memories) observed> > > When a ME says 'now' meaning right now looking at a clock and > starting a race or timing something, it is different to the eternal > NOW that is spoken of as containing all time. No, that's just thoughts/memories/sensations appearing in the Now. > > When someone says start running 'now' it is always a moment within > *phenomenon* and always IN time. And this time is 'only' a thought/feeling construct in the now. I say 'only' because the history record is very complete and consistence, or else your computer could vaporize in the next moment if there was no consistency to this memory track. But still, all is happening Now. > > When a sage say the eternal now, he or she means the arena in which > all time is played out and which makes conventional time 'possible'. And when I say the eternal now, I mean this *changeless* moment. :-) > > > > Time has no reality outside > > thought and emotion. Feeling is timeless.> > > > Feelings / emotions are within time. I like to use the word feeling to more describe the timeless sensation of being and emotions to sensations that are related to thoughts in time (thoughts creating time, such as " I wonder if there will be raining tomorrow " ). > > > > > > But can you see the possibility that you have never been asleep? > > A ME does sleep. But you can never be sure about that. :-) All you know about having been asleep is only a memory. You have no other proof than that memory! > > That > > awareness maybe always is in a state of 'ON'? > > Yes. > > > > > Everything including sleep is a 'track' in the eternal NOW > > > stretching 'back into the past' and 'forward into the future'. > > > > Yes, but can you see the implications of this? That you have never > > existed yesterday> > > The personal self does exist over time including yesterday. As in the form of a history track 'created' now, yes. > > > that there is no such thing as yesterday _other_ > > _than_ as a history track created now? > > There is such a thing as yesterday, and it is exactly yesterday away. If you say so. :-) And almost all people will agree with you, I admit. Still, I maintain, that your and anyone's proof of a yesterday is only in their memory, and that memory is only now. /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 Hi again, > > " Thus shall you think of all this fleeting world: > > A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream; > > A flash of lightening in a summer cloud, > > A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream. " > > > > There is no denial of happening. > No denial whatsoever. Maya *is* the happening> Yes, if by Maya you mean all phenomenon. This is the Timeless > Matrix in action. Nothing ever changes> *Things* do change. Nothing is being created or > destroyed. Things are being created and destroyed. > There is the appearance of doing, just as when we play a computer > game there is the appearance of doing stuff, but the computer game is > changeless. The whole is the *way*. What makes the whole the *way* it IS, is change. You cannot have one without the other, this is excluded middle again. One thing is seperated into two by mentation and then one is chosen as the only reality. Similarly the Game of life is changeless. The information > about everything already exists and is changeless. This information > is being experienced right now, by us> Who is the experiencer? And what are we? We are this > information being experienced! Changelessly! We are not information being experienced. > > Is a ME a viewpoint of the Self? > > Exactly! Or a viewpoint 'in' the Self.> Does a ME look? >This is just a concept, but > what I am pointing to is that the Self is all there is. I prefer > sometimes to call the Self the Timeless Matrix, because the > word 'Self' can be mistaken to mean many Selves. Reality is One. Yes, reality is 'one'. It doesn't matter what you call it. But reality is not ONE, reality IS > before we start to count >Me > and my Father are one, Jesus said. What he meant was: I am the Self, > or I am the Timeless Matrix. Jesus did not say 'ME and my father are one', he said '*I* and my father are one', in other words there is no I *and* my father they are ONE. 'Thou art not thou, thou art HE without thou' ~ Ibn Arabi > > Can something be in 'the Self'? > > We can use another word instead of the Self to make it more > impersonal. All there is is the Timeless Matrix. This Matrix exists > complete and forever unchanging in this now moment> Eternal now is not moment, any moment is withIN time. Picture this > Matrix as a crystal ball containing everything in a changeless state. > This crystal ball is aware of itself, i.e. the Matrix is aware of > itself in its entirety all the 'time'> >So, then if this Matrix is > everything, then who am I with a human body, memories and all of that > stuff? The answer is that the Matrix is everything and so there > cannot be everything *plus* me. Yes! *you* are in no way seperate from '''''IT''''''. >I, my body, my memories, my mind, my > country, the earth, the Milky Way and all other galaxies out there > appear as an experience in one single point in the crystal ball. What point in what? > So, 'me', Anders living in Sweden in the year 2004 now, is just a > single point, a viewpoint in this Matrix. 'You' Anders are a phenomenon. Are you a viewpoint? >The experience of one such > point leads automatically, timelessly, changelessly, to the > experience of another point resulting in the experience of time > flowing> What points? This is conception about what a ME thinks is occurring. One point leads to another point leading to another point, > infinitely fast> The points you are speaking of are bricks of phenomenality within reality. No points led nowhere. **Explanation only arises because there is a *need* to explain, and this need only occurrs to a ME, which along with the conception is apparent phenomenon** >Some people call this Matrix > consciousness, and say that consciousness is all there is, or the > Mind of God, or Brahma, or whatever. Yes, many people have said that consciousness is the root or that consciousness is all there is. > > When a ME says 'now' meaning right now looking at a clock and > > starting a race or timing something, it is different to the eternal > > NOW that is spoken of as containing all time. > > No, that's just thoughts/memories/sensations appearing in the Now. Everything appears in the now, creating time in its arising, when a ME speaks and marks time as an event or circumstance it is always *in* time because it is occuring as a moment *within times creation* Eternal now is not marked by events. > > When someone says start running 'now' it is always a moment within > > *phenomenon* and always IN time. > > And this time is 'only' a thought/feeling construct in the now. It is defined by every arising phenomenon *including* phenomenal thoughts and feelings but not restricted to them. I > say 'only' because the history record is very complete and > consistence, or else your computer could vaporize in the next moment > if there was no consistency to this memory track> It is not the memory or history track that is intact, *objects* / phenomenon are their own duration, objects are their own 'time'. But still, all is > happening Now. Not as a moment in time it is not. Everything is happening over ALL time. > > When a sage say the eternal now, he or she means the arena in which > > all time is played out and which makes conventional time 'possible'. > > And when I say the eternal now, I mean this *changeless* moment. :-) There is no such thing as a changeless 'moment', any moment is within time. Eternal NOW has *nothing* to do with time, it has *more* to do with *space* > > > But can you see the possibility that you have never been asleep? > > > > A ME does sleep. > > But you can never be sure about that. :-) All you know about having > been asleep is only a memory. You have no other proof than that > memory! What creates the past? There is no past without any phenomenon arising. The past is not a quantity in which things appear or happen. > > The personal self does exist over time including yesterday. > > As in the form of a history track 'created' now, yes. The actions and doings thoughts etc that makes the personal self along with every other phenomenon what it is is what makes the past what it is. There is no ( objective ) 'past' *other* than this. Still, I maintain, that your and anyone's proof of a yesterday > is only in their memory, and that memory is only now. Whether it be memory or actions arising live it is all in the same now. There is no past outside of the events that created it. 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.