Guest guest Posted July 19, 2004 Report Share Posted July 19, 2004 Dear friends, I read some interesting articles in your post. The only answer is again to go back to his teaching of analysing oneself. If analysing me is difficult analyse mine. Analyse what is mine, and you will see that I am not the problem but mine is the problem. My body my thoughts, my money my family etc. All these have come to me and will leave me so they are not mine. Constant remembering of this that including the body and mind are not mine will lessen the bondage, and reveal the true me. Love Jac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2004 Report Share Posted July 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " jacmattvm " <jacmattvm> wrote: > Dear friends, I read some interesting articles in your post. The only > answer is again to go back to his teaching of analysing oneself. If > analysing me is difficult analyse mine. Analyse what is mine, and you > will see that I am not the problem but mine is the problem. My body my > thoughts, my money my family etc. All these have come to me and will > leave me so they are not mine. Constant remembering of this that > including the body and mind are not mine will lessen the bondage, and > reveal the true me. Love Jac. Yes. I like to think of all my possessions as existing in time, and time only exists as thoughts and feelings. Only now is real. Strip away time from the now and what is all these possessions? The answer is that these possessions are like time; only thoughts and emotions. The big, big, big difficulty for the human being to see that possesssions have no substance other than as thoughts and feelings is that the ordinary person defines himself or herself as *being* these thoughts and emotions. And when one only has a self, a 'me' that is based merely on thoughts and emotions, then one feels like one would become a nobody, a nothingness, a zombie without this temporary sense of a 'me' in the form of memories and ideas about the future. The real me is now. Only now. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2004 Report Share Posted July 19, 2004 Hi again, > Yes. I like to think of all my possessions as existing in time, and > time only exists as thoughts and feelings> Objects don't exist 'in time'. The objects themselves *are* time, all objects are their *own* duration. Only now is real. Strip > away time from the now and what is all these possessions? The answer > is that these possessions are like time; only thoughts and emotions.> 'Strip away' *objects* ( phenomenon ) there is no time. Time is present only because of phenomenon. > The big, big, big difficulty for the human being to see that > possesssions have no substance other than as thoughts and feelings is > that the ordinary person defines himself or herself as *being* these > thoughts and emotions> Objects are not simply thoughts and feelings. But yes!, the big difficulty for human beings is being able to realize the UN-reality of objects and that possession is not only illusionary but absolutely 100% impossible; it has never happened, could never happen and will never happen. *Nobody owns anything* A ME goes around claiming things as *mine* that I possess or that belong to this thing called ME? 'ME' and 'mine' binds a ME to dualism. And when one only has a self, a 'me' that is > based merely on thoughts and emotions, then one feels like one would > become a nobody, a nothingness, a zombie without this temporary sense > of a 'me' in the form of memories and ideas about the future. The > real me is now. Only now. Any fear is only being felt and thought about or anticipated by a ME. *A ME fears losing a ME* Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2004 Report Share Posted July 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > Yes. I like to think of all my possessions as existing in time, and > > time only exists as thoughts and feelings> > > > Objects don't exist 'in time'. > > The objects themselves *are* time, all objects are their *own* > duration. Objects only exist as thoughts and feelings. > > > Only now is real. Strip > > away time from the now and what is all these possessions? The > answer > > is that these possessions are like time; only thoughts and > emotions.> > > > 'Strip away' *objects* ( phenomenon ) there is no time. > Time is present only because of phenomenon. Yes, that seems to be so. > > > > The big, big, big difficulty for the human being to see that > > possesssions have no substance other than as thoughts and feelings > is > > that the ordinary person defines himself or herself as *being* > these > > thoughts and emotions> > > > Objects are not simply thoughts and feelings. They are. > > But yes!, the big difficulty for human beings is being able to > realize the UN-reality of objects and that possession is not only > illusionary but absolutely 100% impossible; it has never happened, > could never happen and will never happen. > > *Nobody owns anything* > > A ME goes around claiming things as *mine* that I possess or that > belong to this thing called ME? > > 'ME' and 'mine' binds a ME to dualism. And the 'ME' only exists as a relation to 'ME':s possessions, be it memories, knowledge, money or persons. That away the related 'items' from the 'ME' and there is no 'ME' there. > > > And when one only has a self, a 'me' that is > > based merely on thoughts and emotions, then one feels like one > would > > become a nobody, a nothingness, a zombie without this temporary > sense > > of a 'me' in the form of memories and ideas about the future. The > > real me is now. Only now. > > > Any fear is only being felt and thought about or anticipated by a ME. > > *A ME fears losing a ME* And the ME is nothing but a thought/feeling construct, so it is thought/feeling being afraid of itself. :-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2004 Report Share Posted July 20, 2004 Hi again, > > Objects don't exist 'in time'. > > > > The objects themselves *are* time, all objects are their *own* > > duration. > > Objects only exist as thoughts and feelings. No, objects exist at the physical level and so on 'upwards' through mental matter, they are not simply thoughts and feelings ( of a ME ) > > > The big, big, big difficulty for the human being to see that > > > possesssions have no substance other than as thoughts and > feelings > > is > > > that the ordinary person defines himself or herself as *being* > > these > > > thoughts and emotions> > > > > > > Objects are not simply thoughts and feelings. > > They are. No, see above. > > *Nobody owns anything* > > > > A ME goes around claiming things as *mine* that I possess or that > > belong to this thing called ME? > > > > 'ME' and 'mine' binds a ME to dualism. > > And the 'ME' only exists as a relation to 'ME':s possessions, be it > memories, knowledge, money or persons. That away the related 'items' > from the 'ME' and there is no 'ME' there. A ME itself creates a dualism by there being a ME thinking of ME *and* the world. *The ME assumes itself* > > Any fear is only being felt and thought about or anticipated by a > ME. > > > > *A ME fears losing a ME* > > And the ME is nothing but a thought/feeling construct, so it is > thought/feeling being afraid of itself. :-) No, A ME is a *lot more* than a thought / feeling construct. But yes, the thing that fears being lost is itself the thing that is doing the fearing! Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2004 Report Share Posted July 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > Objects don't exist 'in time'. > > > > > > The objects themselves *are* time, all objects are their *own* > > > duration. > > > > Objects only exist as thoughts and feelings. > > No, objects exist at the physical level and so on 'upwards' through > mental matter, they are not simply thoughts and feelings ( of a ME ) They are. ;-) > > > > > > The big, big, big difficulty for the human being to see that > > > > possesssions have no substance other than as thoughts and > > feelings > > > is > > > > that the ordinary person defines himself or herself as *being* > > > these > > > > thoughts and emotions> > > > > > > > > > Objects are not simply thoughts and feelings. > > > > They are. > > No, see above. See your mind. > > > > > > *Nobody owns anything* > > > > > > A ME goes around claiming things as *mine* that I possess or that > > > belong to this thing called ME? > > > > > > 'ME' and 'mine' binds a ME to dualism. > > > > And the 'ME' only exists as a relation to 'ME':s possessions, be it > > memories, knowledge, money or persons. That away the > related 'items' > > from the 'ME' and there is no 'ME' there. > > > A ME itself creates a dualism by there being a ME thinking of ME > *and* the world. > *The ME assumes itself* > > > > > Any fear is only being felt and thought about or anticipated by a > > ME. > > > > > > *A ME fears losing a ME* > > > > And the ME is nothing but a thought/feeling construct, so it is > > thought/feeling being afraid of itself. :-) > > > No, A ME is a *lot more* than a thought / feeling construct. > > But yes, the thing that fears being lost is itself the thing that is > doing the fearing! A lot more? Like what? ;-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2004 Report Share Posted July 20, 2004 Hi again, > > > Objects only exist as thoughts and feelings. > > > > No, objects exist at the physical level and so on 'upwards' through > > mental matter, they are not simply thoughts and feelings ( of a ME ) > > They are. ;-) No, thoughts are feelings are part of what make a ME what are ME is they are also a part of what makes a ME a seperate thing. Objects and how they occur over manifestion are what they are because of what makes them *seperate* things. Objects are *not* thoughts and feelings of a ME. Obejcts cover a spectrum of manifestion of mind, as does everything, the thoughts and feelings are a ME do not take part in the manifestion of that particular object. It is not correct to say that the world exists in someones mind as the forms of thoughts and feeling which I think is what you are trying to say or hinting at. > > > And the ME is nothing but a thought/feeling construct, so it is > > > thought/feeling being afraid of itself. :-) > > > > > > No, A ME is a *lot more* than a thought / feeling construct. > > > > But yes, the thing that fears being lost is itself the thing that > is > > doing the fearing! > > A lot more? Like what? ;-) Thoughts and feelings are a *part* of what make a ME what it is, but they are not the ME, the ME includes all those things that are necessary for thought and thinking and feeling to occurr and the thoughts and feelings themselves. Thoughts and feelings are not things that happen in isolation, where they can be labelled 'ME'. It *takes* a ME to think and feel not the other way around. It is also includes the physical body and all the physical processes and mans subtle bodies responsible for other parts of his makeup. These are an integrated whole and a ME is not any single thing that is or can be selected out in isolation and labelled ME. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > Objects only exist as thoughts and feelings. > > > > > > No, objects exist at the physical level and so on 'upwards' > through > > > mental matter, they are not simply thoughts and feelings ( of a > ME ) > > > > They are. ;-) > > No, thoughts are feelings are part of what make a ME what are ME is > they are also a part of what makes a ME a seperate thing. > > Objects and how they occur over manifestion are what they are because > of what makes them *seperate* things. > > Objects are *not* thoughts and feelings of a ME. > > Obejcts cover a spectrum of manifestion of mind, as does everything, > the thoughts and feelings are a ME do not take part in the > manifestion of that particular object. > > It is not correct to say that the world exists in someones mind as > the forms of thoughts and feeling which I think is what you are > trying to say or hinting at. The experience of a tree for example, is not just thoughts and emotions. The tree is also the direct experience of it in the form of the five senses (maybe more than five). Is the mind in the brain/body or is the brain/body in the mind I don't know. > > > > > > > And the ME is nothing but a thought/feeling construct, so it is > > > > thought/feeling being afraid of itself. :-) > > > > > > > > > No, A ME is a *lot more* than a thought / feeling construct. > > > > > > But yes, the thing that fears being lost is itself the thing that > > is > > > doing the fearing! > > > > A lot more? Like what? ;-) > > Thoughts and feelings are a *part* of what make a ME what it is, but > they are not the ME, the ME includes all those things that are > necessary for thought and thinking and feeling to occurr and the > thoughts and feelings themselves. > > Thoughts and feelings are not things that happen in isolation, where > they can be labelled 'ME'. It *takes* a ME to think and feel not the > other way around. > > It is also includes the physical body and all the physical processes > and mans subtle bodies responsible for other parts of his makeup. > > These are an integrated whole and a ME is not any single thing that > is or can be selected out in isolation and labelled ME. Just as we can separate a 'ME' from the All, we can separate a thought from the 'ME'. It is all about where we make the separation; the part of the quantum 'soup' we cut out and say " this is a separate thing " . /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Hi again, > > It is not correct to say that the world exists in someones mind as > > the forms of thoughts and feeling which I think is what you are > > trying to say or hinting at. > > The experience of a tree for example, is not just thoughts and > emotions. The tree is also the direct experience of it in the form of > the five senses (maybe more than five). >Is the mind in the brain/body> What we think of as 'our mind' operates in union with what we think of as 'our body'. > or is the brain/body in the mind I don't know> Whose mind do you have in mind in the above question? How many minds are there? > > Thoughts and feelings are a *part* of what make a ME what it is, > but > > they are not the ME, the ME includes all those things that are > > necessary for thought and thinking and feeling to occurr and the > > thoughts and feelings themselves. > > > > Thoughts and feelings are not things that happen in isolation, > where > > they can be labelled 'ME'. It *takes* a ME to think and feel not > the > > other way around. > > > > It is also includes the physical body and all the physical > processes > > and mans subtle bodies responsible for other parts of his makeup. > > > > These are an integrated whole and a ME is not any single thing that > > is or can be selected out in isolation and labelled ME. > > Just as we can separate a 'ME' from the All, we can separate a > thought from the 'ME'> The thought is not possible without the ME, and the thought itself is a part of what *makes a ME what a ME is* It is all about where we make the separation; > the part of the quantum 'soup' we cut out and say " this is a separate > thing " . The quantum soup that you speak of is an overlaying of concept to try and describe what you perceive the ultimate energy essence of the nature of reality to be. Who divides the world? It is only a ME that *can* Thoughts and feelings are not things that happen in isolation, It *takes* a ME to think and feel not the other way around. In other words thoughts are dependent upon a ME and are a part of what makes a ME what it is. To use the example of the tree, if you keep seperating and dividing it by removing the leaves, branches, roots etc it is no longer a 'tree'. A ME *includes* the things mentioned above and those things are what make it a ME without which there would be no ME. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > It is not correct to say that the world exists in someones mind > as > > > the forms of thoughts and feeling which I think is what you are > > > trying to say or hinting at. > > > > The experience of a tree for example, is not just thoughts and > > emotions. The tree is also the direct experience of it in the form > of > > the five senses (maybe more than five). > >Is the mind in the brain/body> > > > What we think of as 'our mind' operates in union with what we think > of as 'our body'. > > > > or is the brain/body in the mind I don't know> > > > Whose mind do you have in mind in the above question? > > How many minds are there? I was thinking that maybe the mind appears as a separate wave in the brain/body of a person, or the mind is One Single Field with many experiences in it, like: " All there is is consciousness. Consciousness is all there is. " as Ramesh Balsekar says, and this consciousness may be One Mind. > > > > > > Thoughts and feelings are a *part* of what make a ME what it is, > > but > > > they are not the ME, the ME includes all those things that are > > > necessary for thought and thinking and feeling to occurr and the > > > thoughts and feelings themselves. > > > > > > Thoughts and feelings are not things that happen in isolation, > > where > > > they can be labelled 'ME'. It *takes* a ME to think and feel not > > the > > > other way around. > > > > > > It is also includes the physical body and all the physical > > processes > > > and mans subtle bodies responsible for other parts of his makeup. > > > > > > These are an integrated whole and a ME is not any single thing > that > > > is or can be selected out in isolation and labelled ME. > > > > Just as we can separate a 'ME' from the All, we can separate a > > thought from the 'ME'> > > > The thought is not possible without the ME, and the thought itself is > a part of what *makes a ME what a ME is* The ME is not possible without the universe, and the ME itself is a part of what *makes the universe what the universe is*. It all depends on where we make the division of " things " . > > > It is all about where we make the separation; > > the part of the quantum 'soup' we cut out and say " this is a > separate > > thing " . > > The quantum soup that you speak of is an overlaying of concept to try > and describe what you perceive the ultimate energy essence of the > nature of reality to be. > > Who divides the world? > It is only a ME that *can* So you mean there is no stone without a ME, or is a stone also a ME? > > Thoughts and feelings are not things that happen in isolation, > It *takes* a ME to think and feel not the other way around. > > In other words thoughts are dependent upon a ME and are a part of > what makes a ME what it is. > > To use the example of the tree, if you keep seperating and dividing > it by removing the leaves, branches, roots etc it is no longer > a 'tree'. The tree is only a tree in the form of appearance as a single object with parts, such as leaves and branches. As you said, only a ME can separate this tree from everything else in the quantum 'soup'. Then this ME becomes this which makes any separation possible at all. > > A ME *includes* the things mentioned above and those things are what > make it a ME without which there would be no ME. Do you by ME mean what we normally call a 'person'? /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Hi again, > > Whose mind do you have in mind in the above question? > > > > How many minds are there? > > I was thinking that maybe the mind appears as a separate wave in the > brain/body of a person, or the mind is One Single Field with many > experiences in it, I was *thinking* that *mind*... The eye cannot see itself. Any thinking is a false *subjectification*. What is what WE call 'our mind'? Whose mind is it? like: " All there is is consciousness. > Consciousness is all there is. " as Ramesh Balsekar says, and this > consciousness may be One Mind. The ALL is 'mental' yes, nothing exists outside of mind. > > The thought is not possible without the ME, and the thought itself > is > > a part of what *makes a ME what a ME is* > > The ME is not possible without the universe, and the ME itself is a > part of what *makes the universe what the universe is*> The ME is a part of the universe, the whole. The universe is not possible without a ME because the ME is a part of what makes the universe what it is. The universe is not possible without a grain of sand on a beach. The ME is what divides. >It all > depends on where we make the division of " things " . Who makes the distinction? > > Who divides the world? > > It is only a ME that *can* > > So you mean there is no stone without a ME> A ME *and* a stone are two things *TO a ME* <or is a stone also a ME?> No, a stone is not a ME. > > To use the example of the tree, if you keep seperating and dividing > > it by removing the leaves, branches, roots etc it is no longer > > a 'tree'. > > The tree is only a tree in the form of appearance as a single object > with parts, such as leaves and branches. As you said, only a ME can > separate this tree from everything else in the quantum 'soup'. Then > this ME becomes this which makes any separation possible at all. A definition of a ME is not simply that which can divide the world, but the dividing of the world is one thing that a ME does. > Do you by ME mean what we normally call a 'person'? No. See previous emails. I wrote about the definition of ME extensively. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > Whose mind do you have in mind in the above question? > > > > > > How many minds are there? > > > > I was thinking that maybe the mind appears as a separate wave in > the > > brain/body of a person, or the mind is One Single Field with many > > experiences in it, > > > I was *thinking* that *mind*... > The eye cannot see itself. > > Any thinking is a false *subjectification*. > > What is what WE call 'our mind'? > Whose mind is it? The Mind is probably One. But the thoughts appearing in a person are unique to that person. > > > like: " All there is is consciousness. > > Consciousness is all there is. " as Ramesh Balsekar says, and this > > consciousness may be One Mind. > > > The ALL is 'mental' yes, nothing exists outside of mind. > > > > > > The thought is not possible without the ME, and the thought > itself > > is > > > a part of what *makes a ME what a ME is* > > > > The ME is not possible without the universe, and the ME itself is a > > part of what *makes the universe what the universe is*> > > > The ME is a part of the universe, the whole. > > The universe is not possible without a ME because the ME is a part of > what makes the universe what it is. > > The universe is not possible without a grain of sand on a beach. > > The ME is what divides. > > > >It all > > depends on where we make the division of " things " . > > Who makes the distinction? The separation itself is the 'who'. > > > > > > Who divides the world? > > > It is only a ME that *can* > > > > So you mean there is no stone without a ME> > > > A ME *and* a stone are two things *TO a ME* > > > <or is a stone also a ME?> > > No, a stone is not a ME. > > > > > > To use the example of the tree, if you keep seperating and > dividing > > > it by removing the leaves, branches, roots etc it is no longer > > > a 'tree'. > > > > The tree is only a tree in the form of appearance as a single > object > > with parts, such as leaves and branches. As you said, only a ME can > > separate this tree from everything else in the quantum 'soup'. Then > > this ME becomes this which makes any separation possible at all. > > > A definition of a ME is not simply that which can divide the world, > but the dividing of the world is one thing that a ME does. > > > > Do you by ME mean what we normally call a 'person'? > > No. > See previous emails. > I wrote about the definition of ME extensively. I don't understand your concept called a 'ME'. What would you say is the difference between a person and a ME? /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Hi again, > > Any thinking is a false *subjectification*. > > > > What is what WE call 'our mind'? > > Whose mind is it? > > The Mind is probably One. But the thoughts appearing in a person are > unique to that person. Yes. > > >It all > > > depends on where we make the division of " things " . > > > > Who makes the distinction? > > The separation itself is the 'who'. No. *Stop thinking* > > > Do you by ME mean what we normally call a 'person'? > > > > No. > > See previous emails. > > I wrote about the definition of ME extensively. > > I don't understand your concept called a 'ME'. What would you say is > the difference between a person and a ME? I use the word ME to mean the 'mind / body organism that *thinks of itself as such* What is the difference between what you think when you think of the word 'person' and what I call 'the mind / body organism that *thinks of itself as such*' It is only a ME that can answer or ask. To put it another way WHO is this ME that goes around trying to find out what it is? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > Any thinking is a false *subjectification*. > > > > > > What is what WE call 'our mind'? > > > Whose mind is it? > > > > The Mind is probably One. But the thoughts appearing in a person > are > > unique to that person. > > > Yes. > > > > > > >It all > > > > depends on where we make the division of " things " . > > > > > > Who makes the distinction? > > > > The separation itself is the 'who'. > > No. > > *Stop thinking* > > > > > > Do you by ME mean what we normally call a 'person'? > > > > > > No. > > > See previous emails. > > > I wrote about the definition of ME extensively. > > > > I don't understand your concept called a 'ME'. What would you say > is > > the difference between a person and a ME? > > > I use the word ME to mean the 'mind / body organism that *thinks of > itself as such* > > What is the difference between what you think when you think of the > word 'person' and what I call 'the mind / body organism that *thinks > of itself as such*' > > It is only a ME that can answer or ask. > > To put it another way WHO is this ME that goes around trying to find > out what it is? The ME is a unique filtering process within totality. :-) /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 Hi again, > The ME is a unique filtering process within totality. :-) Yes, a ME *includes* the notion of what you mean above but a ME is not a unique filtering process itself. This is one of the things it 'does'. 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.