Guest guest Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 Fear and Desires are two basis of all thoughts. Fear is present in Chitta (individual consciousness assumed by the Jeeva). Fear too is an illusion but it is assumed by Jeeva as affliction (klesha) arising from the play ignorance (avidya). Avidya is from the Mula-maya (power of the source) embedded into the imagination of THAT One Source appearing as many Jeevas. Word Jeeva is meant to help perceive the concept of source that is reflected behind each body-mind apparatus. Patanjali Sutra says fear is a part of seven fold Prerana (assumed to be placed as intelligence in each Chitta , as evolving intuition ). All words are relative and are meant to convey variety of meaninings for various chitta. This makes the playground of Avidya more interesting for the one who witnesses. Everyone is the source (GOD) having a human experience. Seven Prerana of evolving Pradnya (ie intuition) are - Prepsa, Jivhasa, Jidnyasa, Chikirsha, Shoka, Bhaya (fear) and Atrupti. Last three disappear when Avidya and its afflicted thoughts or memories disappear. Then the YOGI (One who is destined to be the witness) becomes fearless and remains with infinite forbearance (Titiksha). For a sage or yogi everything is a play of light and sound ..(BINDU and NADA). He simply exists as choiceless existence and enjjjjjoys. To know more itself is Jidnyasa and Chikirsha. Prepsa is to want. Jivhasa is to avoid certain things that causes fear(bhaya) and grief (shoka). Atrupti is unsatisfied want. (addiction or greed). As these Preranas evolve they transform as Siddhis or magical powers of intuition or Pradnya. Yogi makes use of available intuition to clean out all afflictions from Chitta. Remember, whatever mind does not understand is stated as unconscious, subconscious or magical terms. Mind is never present in the present moment. Therefore it does not know the light and sound show of the present (ie LIFE). (Only the Dhyanaja Chitta experiences the light from the source). This is a step explained by Patanjali as a way forward towards Vivekakhyati......and further. My words are not good-enough to explain everything as they too are products of Avidya and Asmita. Please read Patanjali's yogasutra in light of the book 'I AM THAT'. Caution: all words are relative. They cause a variety of meanings to various minds. Everyone is right according to their realms of time and place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > <snipping a bit here> > *God cannot brush your teeth for you* > God is the only 'thing' that is happening, but this is a no-thing happening, so there is no one brushing any teeth, never has been, never will be. God is Advaita: not two - and God is all there is. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 Hi again, > <snipping a bit here> > > > *God cannot brush your teeth for you* > > > > God is the only 'thing' that is happening> If you call God all that is, the whole, then there is nothing that is *not* God. but this is a no-thing > happening, so there is no one brushing any teeth> There is brushing of teeth happening, amongst many other happenings. The whole ( God ) cannot think, act or do. -God ( the whole ) cannot brush your teeth for you- never has been, > never will be. God is Advaita: not two - and God is all there is> If you are calling God all there is or wholeness, wholeness cannot will, think, act or do. God doesn't ( and can't ) brush his teeth or yours Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > <snipping a bit here> > > > > > *God cannot brush your teeth for you* > > > > > > > God is the only 'thing' that is happening> > > > If you call God all that is, the whole, then there is nothing that is > *not* God. Exactly. > > > but this is a no-thing > > happening, so there is no one brushing any teeth> > > > There is brushing of teeth happening, amongst many other happenings. > > The whole ( God ) cannot think, act or do. > > -God ( the whole ) cannot brush your teeth for you- But I am the whole. I am not a human body, I am the whole experiencing a human body. So everybody is the whole experiencing itself in different forms. The 'separate' forms cannot do anything - it is not the human body that makes itself act, it is not the human mind that makes itself think. Everything just happens, there is no doer, and this happening makes the whole, God, experience inself in many forms. > > > never has been, > > never will be. God is Advaita: not two - and God is all there is> > > If you are calling God all there is or wholeness, wholeness cannot > will, think, act or do. > > God doesn't ( and can't ) brush his teeth or yours As I have used the word 'God' here is to say that everything is interconnected into itself in One Mind, one consciousness. When I brush my teeth, it is of course not some heavenly Father guiding my hand :-), but instead the one consciousness happening. My body, seemingly solid is nothing but no-thing-ness as form. There is no separation between my tooth brush and my body. On the level of form, of course there is a separation, but that which *connects* form is one field, one consciousness. And that which connects form is all there is; the connections are consciousness in relation to itself. When people pray to God, there is often a separate entity praying to another more powerful entity, and that may work, the one consciousness may respond to prayer, but it is then the same consciousness responding to itself. The prayer is a part of the totality unfolding, and everything happening is meaningful, even the bad stuff. But both good and bad things happening is just form being experienced. A body that dies is nothing but change in form, and a form is nothing in itself. Just as gold can be made into a bracelet, that same gold can be melted and made into new configurations. Consciousness is like gold taking different forms. Consciousness never dies, and consciousness is all there is. Form may appear and disappear, like human bodies, trees and buildings, but form is just a shape, nothing in itself. Birth and death are only change of form; they are opposites, while life has no opposite - life just is. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Hi again, > but this is a no-thing > > happening, so there is no one brushing any teeth> > > > There is brushing of teeth happening, amongst many other happenings. > > The whole ( God ) cannot think, act or do. > > -God ( the whole ) cannot brush your teeth for you- >But I am the whole> The whole cannot say it is the whole; A ME says 'I am the whole', it asserts it's own existence, and is bound. Again, the whole cannot do, think, act or will. *You* are saying that *you* are the whole *and* you can brush your teeth? >I am not a human body, It is a ME that says so, asserting it's own existence. >I am the whole experiencing a human body.> 'You' are the *whole* ( all there is ) and you are experiencing a human body? How can the whole *experience* anything? The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole experiencing a human body'. The whole cannot experience itself or a human body. A *ME* says 'I am the whole...', asserting it's own existence, and is bound as that ME. >So everybody is the whole experiencing itself in different forms> No, everybody is not the whole experiencing itself in different forms. >The 'separate' forms cannot do anything - it is not the human body that makes itself act> The human ( physical ) form cannot move itself. Forms are driven by higher mind, physical bodies are more like puppets. It takes a ME to do and move a body, through decision, choice, thought and thinking. >it is not the human mind that makes itself think> The human mind is that thinking and the capacity to think, and also includes the mechanism that allows us to think. >Everything just happens> Yes. >there is no doer> There are doerS, the whole is not A or THE doer, the whole can't act, think or will. >and this happening makes the whole, God, experience inself in many forms> How can the whole experience *itself*? > never has been, > > never will be. God is Advaita: not two - and God is all there is> Your God is all that is, this 'God' cannot do. > If you are calling God all there is or wholeness, wholeness cannot > will, think, act or do. > > God doesn't ( and can't ) brush his teeth or yours >As I have used the word 'God' here is to say that everything is interconnected into itself in One Mind, one consciousness> You have said that God is the whole, wholeness is *everything*, there is nothing it is not; wholeness cannot do anything, will, make a decision, think or act because it is *all there IS*. The whole does not make itself what it is, it cannot act with volition to DO anything, nor can it DO anything *for* *you*. -God ( all there is ) cannot brush ''''his'''' teeth or *yours*- *You* are not the whole. Only *you* can brush *your* teeth or 'God ( all that is ) cannot brush your teeth *for* you' >When I brush my teeth, it is of course not some heavenly Father guiding my hand :-), but instead the one consciousness happening> The whole cannot DO on your behalf. See above. >My body, seemingly solid is nothing but no-thing-ness as form> Above you have said you are not a body here you are saying 'my' body? Are you a body or the whole? The above ( my question to you ) is an ignorant question. >There is no separation between my tooth brush and my body> There is, otherwise you couldn't brush your teeth. >On the level of form, of course there is a separation, but that which *connects* form is one field, one consciousness> What is 'that' which 'connects'? If everything is one what connects? >And that which connects form is all there is; the connections are consciousness in relation to itself> What connections, these are *conceptions*. >When people pray to God, there is often a separate entity praying to another more powerful entity, and that may work, the one consciousness may respond to prayer, but it is then the same consciousness responding to itself> From previous message; To whom ( to which phenomenon or being ) will you address your devotion? **How can I salute the formless being who fills all this with his self and also fills the self with his self** There are many 'Gods' all equally as real as you or me, and worshipping a personal God is one way of approaching God. Symbolic worship, or devotion to a certain deity is another way of approaching the divine. One can approach God in a dualistic relationship, where a deity is prayed to, invoked, and so on. Yet ask the phenomenal God, *Who* he, she or it is?; *So long as there is a knower and an object ( phenomenon ) to be known, God remains unknown* >The prayer is a part of the totality unfolding, and everything happening is meaningful, even the bad stuff> Meaning and meaningfulness only occurrs *and* is only *of* concern to a reflected self ( ME ). It does not apply to the whole. >But both good and bad things happening is just form being experienced> Bad and good define a particular continuum. Everything that happens is a happening, the 'good' and 'bad' comes 'later' Good and bad things do not happen. >A body that dies is nothing but change in form, and a form is nothing in itself> Yes, no form is inherently real, our bodies are no more credibly real or steadfast than a passing cloud. >Just as gold can be made into a bracelet, that same gold can be melted and made into new configurations. Consciousness is like gold taking different forms> >Consciousness never dies, and consciousness is all there is> Many people like Ramesh Balsekar say 'Consciousness is all there is'; If consciousness is all there is, then consciousness is not conscious. >Form may appear and disappear, like human bodies, trees and buildings, but form is just a shape, nothing in itself> All form is illusion yes, nothing ( phenomenal ) has any inherent existence, 'You' and 'ME' have 'already gone'. >Birth and death are only change of form; they are opposites, while life has no opposite - life just is> Birth and death of what? Who dies, what dies? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > but this is a no-thing > > > happening, so there is no one brushing any teeth> > > > > > > There is brushing of teeth happening, amongst many other happenings. > > > > The whole ( God ) cannot think, act or do. > > > > -God ( the whole ) cannot brush your teeth for you- > > >But I am the whole> > > > > The whole cannot say it is the whole; > > A ME says 'I am the whole', it asserts it's own existence, and is > bound. > > Again, the whole cannot do, think, act or will. > > *You* are saying that *you* are the whole *and* you can brush your > teeth? All that is happening is no-thing, oneness happening. > > > > >I am not a human body, > > > It is a ME that says so, asserting it's own existence. There are no separate objects. A human body is not a separate object, it is only a thought-form in the One Mind. > > > >I am the whole > experiencing a human body.> > > > 'You' are the *whole* ( all there is ) and you are experiencing a > human body? The whole is experiencing all human bodies, and I am simply one of them. > > How can the whole *experience* anything? You consciousness *is* the One Consciousness, the whole experiencing itself. > > The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole experiencing > a human body'. > The whole cannot experience itself or a human body. > > A *ME* says 'I am the whole...', asserting it's own existence, and is > bound as that ME. Everything is bound to everything else. > > > >So everybody is the whole experiencing itself in different forms> > > > No, everybody is not the whole experiencing itself in different forms. Everything is interconnected, so everything *is* one whole. > > > > >The 'separate' forms cannot do anything - > it is not the human body that makes itself act> > > > The human ( physical ) form cannot move itself. > Forms are driven by higher mind, physical bodies are more like > puppets. > > It takes a ME to do and move a body, through decision, choice, > thought and thinking. There is no higher mind making your heart pump blood. All is the One Mind happening now. The One Mind is a happening/experiencing, not a doing. > > > >it is not the human > mind that makes itself think> > > > The human mind is that thinking and the capacity to think, and also > includes the mechanism that allows us to think. > > > >Everything just happens> > > Yes. > > > >there is no doer> > > > There are doerS, the whole is not A or THE doer, the whole can't act, > think or will. I see existence as a single infinite atomic event (all-there-is) happening now. This single event is absolute; it cannot do anything, but the unfolding of this event is what we are experiencing now - all of it. > > > >and this happening makes the whole, God, experience inself in > many forms> > > > How can the whole experience *itself*? It is doing that right now. There are no separate objects. > > > > > never has been, > > > never will be. God is Advaita: not two - and God is all there is> > > > Your God is all that is, this 'God' cannot do. God is 'doing' everything now. This is the Genesis. But this is an atomic event already complete. God is already complete, and God is everything. > > > > > If you are calling God all there is or wholeness, wholeness cannot > > will, think, act or do. > > > > God doesn't ( and can't ) brush his teeth or yours > > >As I have used the word 'God' here is to say that everything is > interconnected into itself in One Mind, one consciousness> > > > You have said that God is the whole, wholeness is *everything*, there > is nothing it is not; wholeness cannot do anything, will, make a > decision, think or act because it is *all there IS*. > > The whole does not make itself what it is, it cannot act with > volition to DO anything, nor can it DO anything *for* *you*. True, there are no doers. What you call doing, I call an atomic event simply unfolding now. > > -God ( all there is ) cannot brush ''''his'''' teeth or *yours*- > > *You* are not the whole. > > Only *you* can brush *your* teeth or 'God ( all that is ) cannot > brush your teeth *for* you' There is no 'me', not any separate God. God is everything. Nothing in existence is separate. The 'me' is only an illusion of separation and of doing within a single infinite event. > > > >When I > brush my teeth, it is of course not some heavenly Father guiding my > hand :-), but instead the one consciousness happening> > > > The whole cannot DO on your behalf. > See above. > > > >My body, > seemingly solid is nothing but no-thing-ness as form> > > > Above you have said you are not a body here you are saying 'my' body? The 'me' is no-thing-ness as form, 'my' body is also no-thing-ness as form. > > Are you a body or the whole? > > The above ( my question to you ) is an ignorant question. I am the whole experiencing itself as a body. > > > >There is no > separation between my tooth brush and my body> > > > There is, otherwise you couldn't brush your teeth. All separation is on the level of form only, and all form is an illusion (Maya). > > > >On the level of form, > of course there is a separation, but that which *connects* form is > one field, one consciousness> > > > What is 'that' which 'connects'? > > If everything is one what connects? The One Consciousness is all there is. This consciousness experiences itself as form due to self-relation. Consciousness related to itself in all possible forms is the single state that is unfolding now. > > > >And that which connects form is all > there is; the connections are consciousness in relation to itself> > > > What connections, these are *conceptions*. All possible ways for consciousness to relate to itself is absolute and timeless reality. This infinite state is being experienced now. By who? By consciousness, of course. What else is there? ;-) > > > >When people pray to God, there is often a separate entity praying to > another more powerful entity, and that may work, the one > consciousness may respond to prayer, but it is then the same > consciousness responding to itself> > > > From previous message; > > To whom ( to which phenomenon or being ) will you address your > devotion? > > **How can I salute the formless being who fills all this with his > self and also fills the self with his self** > > There are many 'Gods' all equally as real as you or me, and > worshipping a personal God is one way of approaching God. > > Symbolic worship, or devotion to a certain deity is another way of > approaching the divine. > > One can approach God in a dualistic relationship, where a deity is > prayed to, invoked, and so on. > > Yet ask the phenomenal God, *Who* he, she or it is?; > > *So long as there is a knower and an object ( phenomenon ) to be > known, God remains unknown* > > > > >The prayer is a part of the > totality unfolding, and everything happening is meaningful, even the > bad stuff> > > > Meaning and meaningfulness only occurrs *and* is only *of* concern to > a reflected self ( ME ). > It does not apply to the whole. Everything just is, yes. > > > >But both good and bad things happening is just form being > experienced> > > Bad and good define a particular continuum. > Everything that happens is a happening, the 'good' and 'bad' > comes 'later' > > Good and bad things do not happen. > > > >A body that dies is nothing but change in form, and a > form is nothing in itself> > > Yes, no form is inherently real, our bodies are no more credibly real > or steadfast than a passing cloud. Or no more steadfast than a single thought! > > > >Just as gold can be made into a bracelet, > that same gold can be melted and made into new configurations. > Consciousness is like gold taking different forms> > > >Consciousness never dies, and consciousness is all there is> > > > Many people like Ramesh Balsekar say 'Consciousness is all there is'; > > If consciousness is all there is, then consciousness is not conscious. Oh yes, it is. Consciousness is aware of all possible configurations of itself. > > > >Form may appear and > disappear, like human bodies, trees and buildings, but form is just a > shape, nothing in itself> > > > All form is illusion yes, nothing ( phenomenal ) has any inherent > existence, > > 'You' and 'ME' have 'already gone'. Yes, we are history. :-) > > > > >Birth and death are only change of form; they are opposites, while > life has no opposite - life just is> > > > Birth and death of what? > > Who dies, what dies? Form dissolves and becomes new forms, but form is nothing in itself, so the human body - being form - is nothing in itself, so no one ever dies. /AL > > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Hi again, > > The whole cannot say it is the whole; > > > > A ME says 'I am the whole', it asserts it's own existence, and is > > bound. > > > > Again, the whole cannot do, think, act or will. > > > > *You* are saying that *you* are the whole *and* you can brush your > > teeth? > > All that is happening is no-thing, oneness happening. There are happenings and we have been discussing them, this discussion is also a happening. Things happen and things happen to things. As reflected selfs / MEs we must participate in the world. We do not need to get rid of an ego or pretend that life is just no- thing happening. *We* cannot avoid the world and pretend that no-thing is happening. As we are, we be and do. Some people ignore the ways of the world and live as monastic monks or ascetics, some people build grand monuments to deities, some people make 100000 bows in front of their chosen deity, some people go to work everyday and hardly even have one thought throughout their whole lives to consider who they are or who or what the divine or God is, some people deny Gods' existence altogether, some people pray to a personal God, some people care neither for philosophy or religion and lead lives pursuing solely material aspects of accumulation, position, wealth and power. All these MEs have no choice but to participate as MEs; as MEs we all participate in each of our unique ways. Life takes each of us by the hand, and teaches us whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not, whether we refuse to participate or acknowledge this, or whether we strive for participation in what we see as our future goal or as a divine goal, for even by not participating we are in fact participating on the stage of life that is of a completely mental composition and dimension. Whilst we are here we *must* participate. Even suicide is not an escape from this participation. Btw, Have you read Herman Hesses' 'Siddartha'? > > >I am not a human body, > > > > > > It is a ME that says so, asserting it's own existence. > > There are no separate objects> There are seperate objects, including human bodies and MEs mentioned above. Every physical object is a seperate object and there are seperate objects in other realms of existence also; a thought is also a seperate object. A human body is not a separate object, > it is only a thought-form in the One Mind. A human body is a seperate object and what makes it what it is is what makes it seperate; how it manifests over the levels of existence that it is comprised of. > > >I am the whole > > experiencing a human body.> > > > > > > 'You' are the *whole* ( all there is ) and you are experiencing a > > human body? > > The whole is experiencing all human bodies, How can the *whole* experience anything? The whole IS. and I am simply one of > them. You are a human body and the whole? > > How can the whole *experience* anything? > > You consciousness *is* the One Consciousness, the whole experiencing > itself. The whole cannot experience itself, cannot act on itself, reflect on itself, or will. > > The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole > experiencing > > a human body'. > > The whole cannot experience itself or a human body. > > > > A *ME* says 'I am the whole...', asserting it's own existence, and > is > > bound as that ME. > > Everything is bound to everything else. Things are not bound to other things. A ME is bound to *itself*. > > >So everybody is the whole experiencing itself in different forms> > > > > > > No, everybody is not the whole experiencing itself in different > forms. > > Everything is interconnected, so everything *is* one whole. Everything is not and does not equal the whole. The sum is not equal to the sum of the parts. Everybody is not the whole experiencing itself. Can the whole ( all that is ) experience itself? > > The human ( physical ) form cannot move itself. > > Forms are driven by higher mind, physical bodies are more like > > puppets. > > > > It takes a ME to do and move a body, through decision, choice, > > thought and thinking. > > There is no higher mind making your heart pump blood> The heart beating does not come under the direction of the *thinking* mind, we do not need to think to control our heart. Although heart beat can be controlled by the thinking mind. It takes a thinking mind to move a body. All is the One > Mind happening now> The ALL is 'mental' yes and there is nothing outside of 'mind'. 'Over all time', the eternal now, everything is fully encompassed. The One Mind is a happening/experiencing, not a > doing. Yes, Wholeness cannot think act, will, make a decision or DO. > > >Everything just happens> > > > > Yes. > > > > > > >there is no doer> > > > > > > There are doerS, the whole is not A or THE doer, the whole can't > act, > > think or will. > > I see existence as a single infinite atomic event (all-there-is) > happening now> Do you really see existence as a single infinite atomic event? This single event is absolute; it cannot do anything, > but the unfolding of this event is what we are experiencing now - all > of it. The whole is not a single event. The whole, all that IS, can be given one description; it IS. > > >and this happening makes the whole, God, experience inself in > > many forms> > > > > > > How can the whole experience *itself*? > > It is doing that right now> If wholeness is *experiencing* itself then it is not wholeness. How can *all that is* *experience* itself, interact with itself as a whole? All that is includes all experiences all interactions. Can all that IS, *experience* itself? >There are no separate objects> There are seperate objects and what makes them what they are is what makes them seperate. > > > never has been, > > > > never will be. God is Advaita: not two - and God is all there > is> > > > > > > Your God is all that is, this 'God' cannot do. > > God is 'doing' everything now. This is the Genesis> Genesis is a creation story. If God = all that IS, then God is not doing, cannot do, because 'he' is all there is including all 'doing'. God is already complete, and God is > everything. Everything is fully encompassed over 'all time', but it is not 'already' complete. It is being enacted *now*. > > You have said that God is the whole, wholeness is *everything*, > there > > is nothing it is not; wholeness cannot do anything, will, make a > > decision, think or act because it is *all there IS*. > > > > The whole does not make itself what it is, it cannot act with > > volition to DO anything, nor can it DO anything *for* *you*. > > True, there are no doers> There are doerS. *Wholeness* cannot DO. What you call doing, I call an atomic event > simply unfolding now. What you call an event unfolding is the action not of an event ( the whole ) DOing. The whole or all that is is not making itself what it is, or unfolding itself by acting upon itself. > > -God ( all there is ) cannot brush ''''his'''' teeth or *yours*- > > > > *You* are not the whole. > > > > Only *you* can brush *your* teeth or 'God ( all that is ) cannot > > brush your teeth *for* you' > > There is no 'me', not any separate God> It is a ME that says ..'There is no ME', asserting it's own existence. There are seperate Gods, as real as anything else, which can be prayed to or to which we can show our devotion. Nothing in > existence is separate> There are seperate objects, even thoughts are seperate. *Nothing exists in seperation* There is a difference. The 'me' is only an illusion of separation and > of doing within a single infinite event. What makes a ME what it is is what makes it seperate. This seperation is not an illusion. There is no single event that can DO. > > The whole cannot DO on your behalf. > > See above. > > > > > > >My body, > > seemingly solid is nothing but no-thing-ness as form> > > > > > > Above you have said you are not a body here you are saying 'my' > body? > > The 'me' is no-thing-ness as form> 'my' body is also no-thing-ness as > form. It is a ME that says so, asserting it's own existence. What makes a ME what it is is ( different types of ) form. A ME is not nothing or nothingness as form, nor is any object / phenomenon nothingness as form. Nothingness does not become form and form does not become nothingness. This is not the message of the Heart Sutra either. The Buddhists form and no form in the Heart sutra points to the unreality or true nature of objects, but objects do not exist as a form of void or nothingness, nor does nothingness become or exist as form. It means to say that no objects have any inherent of-themselves existence. The commonality between *all* physical phenomenon is their inherent unreality, appearance and disappearance. But a human being is not the same as a carrot or table, the comparison of saying that a carrot is phenomenon and my body is phenomenon; my body is an appearance and disappearance as too is a carrot, does not show what a ME is, even if a ME says it. In other words, if a ME says I am temporal apparition that has appeared and that will one day disappear then what they are saying is true statement about themselves but they are not describing what they are. > > Are you a body or the whole? > > > > The above ( my question to you ) is an ignorant question. > > I am the whole experiencing itself as a body. How can the whole experience itself as a body? The whole is all that is, cannot experience itself as anything. The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole experiencing itself as a human body', it is a ME that says the above. These are conceptions to explain the personal *beliefs of a ME*, and those beliefs are a part of what binds a ME TO a ME. > > >There is no > > separation between my tooth brush and my body> > > > > > > There is, otherwise you couldn't brush your teeth. > > All separation is on the level of form only, and all form is an > illusion (Maya). What makes an object what it is is what makes the object a *seperate* thing. Brushing your teeth is not an illusion. Maya refers to the inherent illusionary or true nature of objects. i.e that they are inherently not real in essence. Brushing teeth is not Maya. > > >On the level of form, > > of course there is a separation, but that which *connects* form is > > one field, one consciousness> > > > > > > What is 'that' which 'connects'? > > > > If everything is one what connects? > > The One Consciousness is all there is> Then this consciousness is not conscious. >This consciousness experiences > itself as form due to self-relation. >Consciousness related to itself > in all possible forms is the single state that is unfolding now. Consciousness as phenomenon touches consciousness as phenomenon. This consciousness is not conscious. > > >And that which connects form is all > > there is; the connections are consciousness in relation to itself> > > > > > > What connections, these are *conceptions*. > > All possible ways for consciousness to relate to itself is absolute > and timeless reality. This infinite state is being experienced now. > By who? By consciousness, of course. What else is there? ;-) If consciousness is all there IS, it is not consciousness that is conscious. > > Yes, no form is inherently real, our bodies are no more credibly > real > > or steadfast than a passing cloud. > > Or no more steadfast than a single thought! Yes, all form, including all forms of 'mental matter' is but an appearance and disappearance. > > Many people like Ramesh Balsekar say 'Consciousness is all there > is'; > > > > If consciousness is all there is, then consciousness is not > conscious. > > Oh yes, it is. Consciousness is aware of all possible configurations > of itself. No, if consciousness is all there IS, consciousness is *not* conscious. Consciousness is not all that IS, *and* conscious. Ramesh Balsekar and others from the Advaita Vedanta tradition say this statement and people quote it but then also say that this consciousness is aware or conscious, this is not correct. > > >Form may appear and > > disappear, like human bodies, trees and buildings, but form is just > a > > shape, nothing in itself> > > > > > > All form is illusion yes, nothing ( phenomenal ) has any inherent > > existence, > > > > 'You' and 'ME' have 'already gone'. > > Yes, we are history. :-) Yes, along with every-thing else. > > >Birth and death are only change of form; they are opposites, while > > life has no opposite - life just is> > > > > > > Birth and death of what? > > > > Who dies, what dies? > > Form dissolves and becomes new forms, but form is nothing in itself> Form is mental matter, just the same as everything, there is nothing that is not mind. Comparing mind to matter is not the problem, the problem is that a comparison is made. > so the human body - being form - is nothing in itself, The human body is not nothing in itself. It is a form used for a purpose. All form serves a purpose or meaning ( otherwise it could not be 'moulded' into form ) so no one ever > dies.> People, and not just people, do die and what makes them what they are is what makes them die, what makes people grieve when people die is also a part of what makes us what we are. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi again, > > > > > The whole cannot say it is the whole; > > > > > > A ME says 'I am the whole', it asserts it's own existence, and is > > > bound. > > > > > > Again, the whole cannot do, think, act or will. > > > > > > *You* are saying that *you* are the whole *and* you can brush > your > > > teeth? > > > > All that is happening is no-thing, oneness happening. > > > There are happenings and we have been discussing them, this > discussion is also a happening. > > Things happen and things happen to things. > > As reflected selfs / MEs we must participate in the world. > > We do not need to get rid of an ego or pretend that life is just no- > thing happening. When for example Tony Parsons says that life is no-thing happening, I don't think he pretends that this is so, for him it is a fact, or he is lying. :-) And, of course, for a non-realized person like me, to say that the world is no-thing happening is only a belief, a very firm intellectual conclusion, but nonetheless only a belief. > *We* cannot avoid the world and pretend that no-thing is happening. Intellectually I can see very clearly that the world is no-thing happening, because there cannot really be separate things. A truly separate thing would not be a part of existence! > > As we are, we be and do. > > Some people ignore the ways of the world and live as monastic monks > or ascetics, some people build grand monuments to deities, some > people make 100000 bows in front of their chosen deity, some people > go to work everyday and hardly even have one thought throughout their > whole lives to consider who they are or who or what the divine or God > is, some people deny Gods' existence altogether, some people pray to > a personal God, some people care neither for philosophy or religion > and lead lives pursuing solely material aspects of accumulation, > position, wealth and power. > > All these MEs have no choice but to participate as MEs; as MEs we all > participate in each of our unique ways. > > Life takes each of us by the hand, and teaches us whether we like it > or not, whether we admit it or not, whether we refuse to participate > or acknowledge this, or whether we strive for participation in what > we see as our future goal or as a divine goal, for even by not > participating we are in fact participating on the stage of life that > is of a completely mental composition and dimension. > > Whilst we are here we *must* participate. > Even suicide is not an escape from this participation. > > Btw, Have you read Herman Hesses' 'Siddartha'? No, I haven't read Siddartha. I think it is interesting to think about all people, including myself, as a form appearing now. This means that there never has been any past. No Dalai Lama, no Adolf Hitler, and no Margareth Thatcher, and no Anders Lindman. :-) There has never been anyone! Marylin Monroe is a form appearing now. You are a form appearing now. There has never been anyone being born. There has never been anyone who has died. Form cannot be born. Form cannot die. Form is not a 'thing' in itself. There has never been anyone making 100000 bows in front of a chosen deity. :-) If Abraham Lincoln is now and _only_ now, then is he dead or is he alive? The standard answer is that now he is dead and in the past he was alive, but what if there is only now, then the past is also now. So, does this mean Abraham Lincoln is both dead and alive in this Now? No, it means that Abramam Lincoln is a ****FORM**** in the now. A form is not a thing. A form cannot live. A form cannot die. What does this mean? It means that the world is NO- THING happening. It means that all there is is consciousness, or call it the Mind of God, the One, or whatever. > > > > > >I am not a human body, > > > > > > > > > It is a ME that says so, asserting it's own existence. > > > > There are no separate objects> > > > There are seperate objects, including human bodies and MEs mentioned > above. > > Every physical object is a seperate object and there are seperate > objects in other realms of existence also; a thought is also a > seperate object. Objects are separate in the sense that it is possible to differentiate between them. A wave in the ocen is separate from another wave in the ocean. Of course! But there is an interconnectedness between separate objects, and it is in this connectedness we find reality, what is. Objects only exist as relative waves. Objects have no independent existence. Objects are forms (or ripples) in the One Consciousness. The One Consciousness is all there is. > > > A human body is not a separate object, > > it is only a thought-form in the One Mind. > > A human body is a seperate object and what makes it what it is is > what makes it seperate; how it manifests over the levels of existence > that it is comprised of. A human body is not made of different kinds of 'stuff'. If stuff 'A' was truly separate from stuff 'B', then they would not be part of the same existence. So the human body is made of one 'stuff'. A rock or a tree are made of the same 'stuff'. This one stuff is the One Consciousness in which no things are truly separate. A thing is not something other than the One Consciousness in relation to itself. All there is is the One Consciousness. If there would be another 'thing' in existence is must be related somehow to the One Consciousness, but that which relates the other thing with the One Consciousness cannot be a separate object, and thus must be the One Consciousness itself. And that means that the other thing must also be the One Consciousness, or else it would be a truly separate thing, and as we have seen, a truly separate thing cannot be a part of existence. > > > > > >I am the whole > > > experiencing a human body.> > > > > > > > > > 'You' are the *whole* ( all there is ) and you are experiencing a > > > human body? > > > > The whole is experiencing all human bodies, > > > How can the *whole* experience anything? > The whole IS. You *are* the whole experienceing itself. How? Don't ask me. :-) You cannot know yourself, you can only be yourself. Knowledge is only possible when we have a subject - object relationship. In oneness there is only being. Oneness cannot know oneness as an object without itself becoming and object. Oneness can only *be* oneness. And you *are* oneness. As I have expained again, and again, there *are no separate things*. ;-) > > > and I am simply one of > > them. > > > You are a human body and the whole? Yes sir! > > > > > How can the whole *experience* anything? > > > > You consciousness *is* the One Consciousness, the whole > experiencing > > itself. > > > The whole cannot experience itself, cannot act on itself, reflect on > itself, or will. Would you admit that there cannot possibly exist any truly separate object? A truly separate object, as I define it, has no relations to any other objects, or if it has, then all these relations can be removed and the object will remain a separate object. But how can an object with *no* relations whatsoever with the rest of reality be a part of reality. It can't! So, what we then have is the whole and only the whole. There is nothing other than the whole. > > > > > The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole > > experiencing > > > a human body'. > > > The whole cannot experience itself or a human body. > > > > > > A *ME* says 'I am the whole...', asserting it's own existence, > and > > is > > > bound as that ME. > > > > Everything is bound to everything else. > > > Things are not bound to other things. > > A ME is bound to *itself*. As I have explained: there are no separate objects! > > > > > >So everybody is the whole experiencing itself in different forms> > > > > > > > > > No, everybody is not the whole experiencing itself in different > > forms. > > > > Everything is interconnected, so everything *is* one whole. > > > Everything is not and does not equal the whole. I see everything as the same as the whole. > The sum is not equal to the sum of the parts. There are no parts. Never has been. Never will be. By part I mean something that can be truly separated from the rest of existence. > > Everybody is not the whole experiencing itself. The whole is the only 'thing' there is. > > Can the whole ( all that is ) experience itself? We are doing it right now! :-) > > > > > The human ( physical ) form cannot move itself. > > > Forms are driven by higher mind, physical bodies are more like > > > puppets. > > > > > > It takes a ME to do and move a body, through decision, choice, > > > thought and thinking. > > > > There is no higher mind making your heart pump blood> > > The heart beating does not come under the direction of the *thinking* > mind, we do not need to think to control our heart. > Although heart beat can be controlled by the thinking mind. > > It takes a thinking mind to move a body. There are no separate parts. Even a heart is connected in every 'detail' with every 'particle' in the universe. Some mystics have said: " The universe is a diamond in the heart " . Everything is a hologram. Any 'part' of a hologram contains the whole. > > > All is the One > > Mind happening now> > > > The ALL is 'mental' yes and there is nothing outside of 'mind'. > 'Over all time', the eternal now, everything is fully encompassed. We don't need to say the eternal now, just now will be enough. > > > The One Mind is a happening/experiencing, not a > > doing. > > > Yes, Wholeness cannot think act, will, make a decision or DO. That's right, because there never has been, is, or ever will be a truly separate entity able to act in any way or form. " 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. " -- Tony Parsons > > > > > >Everything just happens> > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > >there is no doer> > > > > > > > > > There are doerS, the whole is not A or THE doer, the whole can't > > act, > > > think or will. > > > > I see existence as a single infinite atomic event (all-there-is) > > happening now> > > > Do you really see existence as a single infinite atomic event? Yes! Intellectually. But I don't feel deep down the truth (or untruth) about this theory. :-( > > > This single event is absolute; it cannot do anything, > > but the unfolding of this event is what we are experiencing now - > all > > of it. > > > The whole is not a single event. > The whole, all that IS, can be given one description; it IS. Yes, but on an intellectual level, I think that my theory about everything being one atomic infinite event happening now is interesting. It is not even my idea. I think Wayne Liquorman described reality in a similar way, and that is where I got the idea from. > > > > > >and this happening makes the whole, God, experience inself in > > > many forms> > > > > > > > > > How can the whole experience *itself*? > > > > It is doing that right now> > > > If wholeness is *experiencing* itself then it is not wholeness. > > How can *all that is* *experience* itself, interact with itself as a > whole? > > All that is includes all experiences all interactions. > > Can all that IS, *experience* itself? Yes, in time! The whole is experiencing itself now, but this experience is not finished yet, it will never end! We are the whole experiencing itself. We are God as the creator and creation in action. When did this experience start? The answer is that it started: now! > > > > >There are no separate objects> > > > There are seperate objects and what makes them what they are is what > makes them seperate. There are no *truly* separate objects. And any only relatively separate object is not a thing in itself: it is a no-thing. > > > > > > never has been, > > > > > never will be. God is Advaita: not two - and God is all there > > is> > > > > > > > > > Your God is all that is, this 'God' cannot do. > > > > God is 'doing' everything now. This is the Genesis> > > > Genesis is a creation story. > > If God = all that IS, then God is not doing, cannot do, because 'he' > is all there is including all 'doing'. > > > God is already complete, and God is > > everything. God is infinite and infinity never ends. Infinity starts *now* and will continue forever. > > > Everything is fully encompassed over 'all time', but it is > not 'already' complete. > It is being enacted *now*. Yes! Yes! My mistake. Everything is complete, but not yet! :-) > > > > > > You have said that God is the whole, wholeness is *everything*, > > there > > > is nothing it is not; wholeness cannot do anything, will, make a > > > decision, think or act because it is *all there IS*. > > > > > > The whole does not make itself what it is, it cannot act with > > > volition to DO anything, nor can it DO anything *for* *you*. > > > > True, there are no doers> > > > There are doerS. > *Wholeness* cannot DO. You are wholeness experiencing itself, not doing itself. But doing in the form of experience is of course a part of what is happening. But doing, such as actual making the universe alter its course by some individual will is sheer illusion. > > > What you call doing, I call an atomic event > > simply unfolding now. > > > What you call an event unfolding is the action not of an event ( the > whole ) DOing. > > The whole or all that is is not making itself what it is, or > unfolding itself by acting upon itself. Not by acting, the whole unfolding now, *is*. > > > > > -God ( all there is ) cannot brush ''''his'''' teeth or *yours*- > > > > > > *You* are not the whole. > > > > > > Only *you* can brush *your* teeth or 'God ( all that is ) cannot > > > brush your teeth *for* you' > > > > There is no 'me', not any separate God> > > > It is a ME that says ..'There is no ME', asserting it's own existence. Yes, but only as a form in totality. A form is nothing in itself. > > There are seperate Gods, as real as anything else, which can be > prayed to or to which we can show our devotion. When I say a single infinite atomic event is all there is, then this may seem like some puny event, but this single events can contain an infinite number of gods creating an infinite number of universes in the span of one femtosecond and all of that within a tiny superstring in your left ear lobe. :-) > > > Nothing in > > existence is separate> > > > There are seperate objects, even thoughts are seperate. > > *Nothing exists in seperation* > > There is a difference. Yes, that is one way to see it. And then we must be careful what we mean by a separate object that cannot exist in separation. What is the object in itself? The answer: " The object is what the object is " is not an explanation. The object exists only withing a larger framework, and that framework itself only exists withing the whole interconnectedness of reality, and not as a separate object. And we then see that no separate objects truly exist. > > > The 'me' is only an illusion of separation and > > of doing within a single infinite event. > > > What makes a ME what it is is what makes it seperate. > This seperation is not an illusion. > There is no single event that can DO. The experience of being separate is not an illusion. But is the experience of being separate a permanent experience? I think not. > > > > > The whole cannot DO on your behalf. > > > See above. > > > > > > > > > >My body, > > > seemingly solid is nothing but no-thing-ness as form> > > > > > > > > > Above you have said you are not a body here you are saying 'my' > > body? > > > > The 'me' is no-thing-ness as form> > 'my' body is also no-thing-ness as > > form. > > > It is a ME that says so, asserting it's own existence. > > What makes a ME what it is is ( different types of ) form. > > A ME is not nothing or nothingness as form, nor is any object / > phenomenon nothingness as form. > > Nothingness does not become form and form does not become nothingness. > > This is not the message of the Heart Sutra either. > > The Buddhists form and no form in the Heart sutra points to the > unreality or true nature of objects, > but objects do not exist as a form of void or nothingness, nor does > nothingness become or exist as form. > It means to say that no objects have any inherent of-themselves > existence. No-thing-ness is not nothingness. So when we say no-thing is happening, we don't mean nothing is happening. > > The commonality between *all* physical phenomenon is their inherent > unreality, appearance and disappearance. > > But a human being is not the same as a carrot or table, the > comparison of saying that a carrot > is phenomenon and my body is phenomenon; my body is an appearance and > disappearance as too is a carrot, > does not show what a ME is, even if a ME says it. > > In other words, if a ME says I am temporal apparition that has > appeared and that will one day disappear then what they are saying is > true statement about themselves but they are not describing what they > are. With one pencil we can draw many pictures. Similarly, the One Consciousness draws many forms making this reality happen. > > > > > Are you a body or the whole? > > > > > > The above ( my question to you ) is an ignorant question. > > > > I am the whole experiencing itself as a body. > > > How can the whole experience itself as a body? In time. > > The whole is all that is, cannot experience itself as anything. If the whole is all that is, then there is nothing else than the whole being able to experience anything. > > The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole experiencing > itself as a human body', it is a ME that says the above. No, it is the whole experiencing itself as a ME in time experiencing the 'doing' of saying " I am the whole " , but this is in fact no real doing created by the ME. The ME is an *experience* the whole is having. An experience cannot itself *do* anything. > > These are conceptions to explain the personal *beliefs of a ME*, and > those beliefs are a part of what binds a ME TO a ME. > > > > > >There is no > > > separation between my tooth brush and my body> > > > > > > > > > There is, otherwise you couldn't brush your teeth. > > > > All separation is on the level of form only, and all form is an > > illusion (Maya). > > > What makes an object what it is is what makes the object a *seperate* > thing. You cannot say: " The object is what makes it an object " without having a framework, a context in which this object exists, and even this framework is only a part of totality in the form of form. The framework has no independent existence, and so how can an object dependent on such framework be said to be a separate thing? > > Brushing your teeth is not an illusion. There has never been anyone brushing any teeth. > > Maya refers to the inherent illusionary or true nature of objects. > i.e that they are inherently not real in essence. > > Brushing teeth is not Maya. All form is Maya. Maya means 'that which can be measured', including your body and the tooth brush. Your body is not an entity!!!!! We are not objects. You are caught in the dream of separation. (So am I) :-) > > > > > >On the level of form, > > > of course there is a separation, but that which *connects* form is > > > one field, one consciousness> > > > > > > > > > What is 'that' which 'connects'? > > > > > > If everything is one what connects? > > > > The One Consciousness is all there is> > > > Then this consciousness is not conscious. It is conscious now. It is you. > > > >This consciousness experiences > > itself as form due to self-relation. > >Consciousness related to itself > > in all possible forms is the single state that is unfolding now. > > Consciousness as phenomenon touches consciousness as phenomenon. > This consciousness is not conscious. If consciousness is all there is, then what can be conscious but consciousness itself? > > > > > >And that which connects form is all > > > there is; the connections are consciousness in relation to itself> > > > > > > > > > What connections, these are *conceptions*. > > > > All possible ways for consciousness to relate to itself is absolute > > and timeless reality. This infinite state is being experienced now. > > By who? By consciousness, of course. What else is there? ;-) > > > If consciousness is all there IS, it is not consciousness that is > conscious. There can only be one 'stuff', as I have explained, and that one stuff is the One Consciousness, or what you want to call it. > > > > > Yes, no form is inherently real, our bodies are no more credibly > > real > > > or steadfast than a passing cloud. > > > > Or no more steadfast than a single thought! > > > Yes, all form, including all forms of 'mental matter' is but an > appearance and disappearance. > > > > > Many people like Ramesh Balsekar say 'Consciousness is all there > > is'; > > > > > > If consciousness is all there is, then consciousness is not > > conscious. > > > > Oh yes, it is. Consciousness is aware of all possible > configurations > > of itself. > > > No, if consciousness is all there IS, consciousness is *not* > conscious. > > Consciousness is not all that IS, *and* conscious. > > Ramesh Balsekar and others from the Advaita Vedanta tradition say > this statement and people quote it but then also say that this > consciousness is aware or conscious, this is not correct. There can only be one 'stuff' in existence. > > > > > > >Form may appear and > > > disappear, like human bodies, trees and buildings, but form is > just > > a > > > shape, nothing in itself> > > > > > > > > > All form is illusion yes, nothing ( phenomenal ) has any inherent > > > existence, > > > > > > 'You' and 'ME' have 'already gone'. > > > > Yes, we are history. :-) > > > Yes, along with every-thing else. But an ongoing history! > > > > > >Birth and death are only change of form; they are opposites, > while > > > life has no opposite - life just is> > > > > > > > > > Birth and death of what? > > > > > > Who dies, what dies? > > > > Form dissolves and becomes new forms, but form is nothing in itself> > > > Form is mental matter, just the same as everything, there is nothing > that is not mind. Hmm... 'there is nothing that is not mind' is *exactly* what I mean when I say that all there is is consciousness. > Comparing mind to matter is not the problem, the problem is that a > comparison is made. > > > > so the human body - being form - is nothing in itself, > > > The human body is not nothing in itself. > > It is a form used for a purpose. > > All form serves a purpose or meaning ( otherwise it could not > be 'moulded' into form ) > > > so no one ever > > dies.> > > > People, and not just people, do die and what makes them what they are > is what makes them die, what makes people grieve when people die > is also a part of what makes us what we are. There has never been any person alive or dead! All there is is now. The past is also now. Abraham Lincoln is not a 'being', he is a form appearing now, and only now. There never has been any past. The only past there is is now. Abraham Lincoln is now. Only now. :-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 Hi again, > As reflected selfs / MEs we must participate in the world. > > We do not need to get rid of an ego or pretend that life is just no- > thing happening. >When for example Tony Parsons says that life is no-thing happening, I don't think he pretends that this is so, for him it is a fact, or he is lying. :-)> Tony Parsons is a ME, and just like you or me Tony Parsons sees the world in the same way as you and me do, plus or minus the bias of personal inherentness of that unique reflected self / ME. >And, of course, for a non-realized person like me, to say that the world is no-thing happening is only a belief, a very firm intellectual conclusion, but nonetheless only a belief> Tony Parsons is not a realized or enlightened person and you are not an unrealized or unenlightened person. Any intellectual conclusion asserts your existence as a separate ME. > *We* cannot avoid the world and pretend that no-thing is happening. >Intellectually I can see very clearly that the world is no-thing happening> If you are seeing this intellectually then it is a conception of what you believe, by a ME that is participating and asserting itself as that ME. >because there cannot really be separate things. A truly separate thing would not be a part of existence!> There are seperate things, nothing exists in seperation. There cannot be things without what we call separation because what they are is what makes them separate. At the level of non-seperation we can no longer speak about separate objects because at a certain level an apple is no longer an apple, so it is meaningless to speak of it being separate. At the level of separation, where things are different from one another, one must speak about separate objects because at this level of manifestation this is how they appear, and this is what allows us to define what separation itself is. > Whilst we are here we *must* participate. > Even suicide is not an escape from this participation. > > Btw, Have you read Herman Hesses' 'Siddartha'? >No, I haven't read Siddartha> The story is somewhat related to what I have said above. If you get the chance to read it see what you think. >I think it is interesting to think about all people, including myself, as a form appearing now. This means that there never has been any past. No Dalai Lama, no Adolf Hitler, and no Margareth Thatcher, and no Anders Lindman. :-)> All of the above people have existed, and the past could not have been the past, eis notf the past ( and the whole ), without them. >There has never been anyone!> Marylin Monroe is a form appearing now. You are a form appearing now. There has never been anyone being born> There has been a Marilyn Monroe, and there continues to be people born and people die, this is a part of reality and a part of what makes the whole what it is. >There has never been anyone who has died. Form cannot be born> There has, people are born and people die. Form itself changes and this includes what happens during the process of dying. >Form cannot die. Form is not a 'thing' in itself.> What we call death is a changing of form, man is made of many different levels of mind co-operating together as a whole, death is the disintegration of the physical sheath. >There has never been anyone making 100000 bows in front of a chosen deity. :-)> There has been and there still is, and you could do this also if you wanted to. >If Abraham Lincoln is now and _only_ now, then is he dead or is he alive? Now is either a moment in time, in which case, every moment of Abraham Lincolns life consisted of a series of in-time nows, or NOW is eall timef, and this has nothing to do with time and includes *everything* >The standard answer is that now he is dead and in the past he was alive, but what if there is only now, then the past is also now> Maybe you are confusing now as a moment in time and NOW with the 'eternal now' which has nothing to do with time. You are speaking of now as a moment in time and NOW as the eternal in the same statement. >So, does this mean Abraham Lincoln is both dead and alive in this Now? No, it means that Abramam Lincoln is a ****FORM**** in the now. Abraham Lincoln and everything else exists in what we call the eternal NOW, eover all timef this includes everything, every occurrence, every who what when and why. >A form is not a thing. A form cannot live> I beg your pardon? There is no form that is not living. There is nothing dead in the entire universe. >A form cannot die. What does this mean? > *Forms* do die, change, part of our dying process as individuals is the changing and destruction of the physical sheath, organized forms deteriorate. Form itself doesnft get destroyed or cease to exist it simply changes from a certain type of organized form into something else, or a different dis-organization of form, this is our death. Every moment of our lives our physical form is slowly disintegrating / eagingf. Death is a process of changing form. >It means that the world is NO- THING happening> Things are happening, like this email, things also happen to things, the whole is all this which includes all and every happening, who what when where why >It means that all there is is consciousness, or call it the Mind of God, the One, or whatever> Saying that all is consciousness is misleading because it is then stated or thought that this consciousness which is all that exists, is conscious, which is not the case. Nothing that exists is aware. We can say that the all is mental or everything is of a mental nature, or there is nothing outside of mind. > Every physical object is a seperate object and there are seperate > objects in other realms of existence also; a thought is also a > seperate object. >Objects are separate in the sense that it is possible to differentiate between them> Objects are separate because they manifest differently over different levels from a different root cause. The manifestation from the top to the bottom is what causes the discreteness seen in manifestation. >A wave in the ocen is separate from another wave in the ocean. Of course! But there is an interconnectedness between separate objects, and it is in this connectedness we find reality, what is> Objects are separate because of the way they manifest and exist, every object in the physical shares the same the same eprocess of descentf, otherwise it could not be a physical object. Its difference is in the manifestation to the physical. Separation is only meaningful to speak of in terms of objects, and when we are speaking in terms of objects these objects are separate, it is the objects themselves that let us define what we know of as separation. >Objects only exist as relative waves. Objects have no independent existence> Yes, no-thing has any independent existence. >Objects are forms (or ripples) in the One Consciousness> Objects are manifestations of mind or mind manifest. >The One Consciousness is all there is.> The eall is mindf, the nature of the universe is ementalf. The Advaita people say eall there is is consciousness', but it probably does more to confuse by saying this. > A human body is a seperate object and what makes it what it is is > what makes it seperate; how it manifests over the levels of existence > that it is comprised of. >A human body is not made of different kinds of 'stuff'. If stuff 'A' was truly separate from stuff 'B', then they would not be part of the same existence.> All is not econsciousnessf as the same estuff', everything is of a mental nature, and mind is expressed in many different forms. Our thoughts are expressions of mental matter but even they are different and what they each are is what makes them different. What makes us separate as individual beings is differing manifestation of mental matter and the complexities of how this matter is formed into organized structure. If we compare consciousness to clay and say a pot is made of clay and so is a cup, yet both are still clay, it points to the notion of everything being made of one substance, but everything is not made of one substance, everything is made of different substances, who have as their commonality the quality of mind. Different substances, different type of mental matter is organized into different functions of complexity for different purposes. You might say everything is vibration, but this changing vibration makes things different. It is all vibration as a quality but all vibration is not the same as all vibration, if it were there would not be any difference in anything. In the same way we could say that the whole and everything in it shares the root nature of ementalityf, but this is expressed and organized differently forming different things. I think the clay or substance model points to everything being of one enaturef but not that everything is one thing or substance. This is part of the problems with words, in that it is not now that we are discussing reality but that we are discussing our use of definitions that comprise what we call reality. >So the human body is made of one 'stuff'> Nothing is made of the same or one *stuff* ( all stuff is phenomenal ), because if it were there would only be one thing / stuff, without difference. Everything is made from modifications or expressions by one activity, which is mental. A human or any other physical object is made of different layers of different stuff with the commonality of the same quality, i.e it consists of layers of mind, the physical being the most dense expression, these layers of mind are *different* from one another. We could say that what we call mind is one thing but that mind is expressed over many differing levels of expression, objects and things, including subtle things such as thoughts are expression in this spectrum of ( mental ) matter. Every part of the manifestation of a thing is spread across a spectrum of difference, and it is this difference that we call mind, the all. >A rock or a tree are made of the same 'stuff'. This one stuff is the One Consciousness in which no things are truly separate. A thing is not something other than the One Consciousness in relation to itself.> Rocks and trees are not made of the same stuff. eStufff in whichever way we talk about it is phenomenal, and being phenomenal, rocks and trees are made of different substances. All objects exist over *different* levels of mind, this is what makes them separate. Rocks and trees share the similarity of existing over the same layers of mind, but they are different, are organized differently strructurally, perform different functions, have different capabilities etc. >All there is is the One Consciousness. If there would be another 'thing' in existence is must be related somehow to the One Consciousness, but that which relates the other thing with the One Consciousness cannot be a separate object, and thus must be the One Consciousness itself.> Yes, there is nothing outside of mind. >And that means that the other thing must also be the One Consciousness, or else it would be a truly separate thing, and as we have seen, a truly separate thing cannot be a part of existence.> Yes, nothing exists in separation, there is no such thing as an object having an independent of itself existence. > > > >I am the whole > > > experiencing a human body.> > > > > > > > > > 'You' are the *whole* ( all there is ) and you are experiencing a > > > human body? > > > > The whole is experiencing all human bodies, > > > How can the *whole* experience anything? > The whole IS. >You *are* the whole experienceing itself> No, I am not the whole experiencing itself. How can the whole, which is all there IS experience itself? >You cannot know yourself, you can only be yourself. > No, no ME can know. >Knowledge is only possible when we have a subject - object relationship. In oneness there is only being.> Subject and object are never two, except when subject is conceptualized as object or phenomenon is conceptualized as the originator of subject. >Oneness cannot know oneness as an object without itself becoming and object. Oneness can only *be* oneness.> Oneness, Wholeness cannot experience itself or become its object because it is everything. Wholeness is all there IS. >And you *are* oneness.> No, neither you nor me are oneness. >As I have expained again, and again, there *are no separate things*. ;-)> There are separate things, nothing exists in seperation. A watch is separate from a tree, this separation is what makes the object what it is and what allows us to define what separation is. > and I am simply one of > > them. > > > You are a human body and the whole? >Yes sir!> How can you be a human body and be the whole ( all that is )? > > > How can the whole *experience* anything? > > > > You consciousness *is* the One Consciousness, the whole > experiencing > > itself. > > > The whole cannot experience itself, cannot act on itself, reflect on > itself, or will. >Would you admit that there cannot possibly exist any truly separate object?> Yes, no object has any independent existence. >But how can an object with *no* relations whatsoever with the rest of reality be a part of reality. It can't! > The whole has no other relations, it IS, it canft act on itself and doesn't make itself what it is. >So, what we then have is the whole and only the whole. There is nothing other than the whole.> Yes, the whole is all there IS. The whole then cannot act *on* itself, reflect itself or will itself because the whole is all, there is nothing else. > > > The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole > > experiencing > > > a human body'. > > > The whole cannot experience itself or a human body. > > > > > > A *ME* says 'I am the whole...', asserting it's own existence, > and > > is > > > bound as that ME. > > > > Everything is bound to everything else. > > > Things are not bound to other things. > > A ME is bound to *itself*. >As I have explained: there are no separate objects!> It is meaningless to speak about objects and then say there are no separate objects because what makes and allows them to be objects is how we define seperation. You could say there is no separation, and not speak about objects at all or say something similar to what Chuang Tzu said; The being of separate beings is non-separate being. > > > >So everybody is the whole experiencing itself in different forms> > > > > > > > > > No, everybody is not the whole experiencing itself in different > > forms. > > > > Everything is interconnected, so everything *is* one whole. > > > Everything is not and does not equal the whole. >I see everything as the same as the whole.> Everything is not the whole, one thing is not the whole, and the addition of everything is not the whole. > The sum is not equal to the sum of the parts. >There are no parts. Never has been. Never will be. By part I mean something that can be truly separated from the rest of existence.> Yes, nothing exists independently, nothing exists in separation. > Everybody is not the whole experiencing itself. >The whole is the only 'thing' there is.> The whole is all there is and you and me are not all there is. > Can the whole ( all that is ) experience itself? >We are doing it right now! :-)> No we aren't. The whole is everything including all MEs and their experiences. How can the whole, all that IS experience itself if it is all there IS? > The ALL is 'mental' yes and there is nothing outside of 'mind'. > 'Over all time', the eternal now, everything is fully encompassed. >We don't need to say the eternal now, just now will be enough.> Yes, we do, the now referred to above is not a moment in time. We say eternal now or NOW in capitals to distinguish from now as a moment in time. You have used both these terms in the same sentence previously without making a clear distinction. > The One Mind is a happening/experiencing, not a > > doing. > > > Yes, Wholeness cannot think act, will, make a decision or DO. >That's right, because there never has been, is, or ever will be a truly separate entity able to act in any way or form> No, because wholeness is all there is, and is not capable of willing itself or making itself what it is. There are individual entities, and all of these entities make the whole what it is, the whole cannot act on itself. Beings as separate beings can and do act, it is the whole that cannot act and has no will. " There is no separate intelligence weaving a destiny and no choice functioning at any level> I don't know Tony Parsons means eby separate intelligencef, but the capacity for intelligence and the mental faculty for providing it exists IN the individual, even using the term precisely, the individuals mind is a part of each ME, and it is separate and unique to each ME. What makes us individuals is this limitation of mind thought and intellect which exists discretely. >Nothing is happening but this, as it is> Nothing is happening but this, as it is = everything is happening as it is. >invites the apparent seeker to rediscover that which is> If a seeker is seeking a ME is bound. The seeker can never know. . . . the abiding, uncaused, unchanging, impersonal silence from which unconditional love overflows and celebrates. It is the wonderful mystery. " -- Tony Parsons The wonderful mystery that Tony Parsons is speaking about, is an interpretation that he has given to reality as a ME. > This single event is absolute; it cannot do anything, > > but the unfolding of this event is what we are experiencing now - > all > > of it. > > > The whole is not a single event. > The whole, all that IS, can be given one description; it IS. >Yes, but on an intellectual level, I think that my theory about everything being one atomic infinite event happening now is interesting. It is not even my idea. I think Wayne Liquorman described reality in a similar way, and that is where I got the idea from.> It can only be interesting to a ME that is bound, if it is interesting, amazing or even divine, that ME is bound. > Can all that IS, *experience* itself? >Yes, in time! The whole is experiencing itself now, but this experience is not finished yet, it will never end!> The whole includes time, how can the whole experience itself in time? >We are the whole experiencing itself> No, we are not the whole experiencing itself. >We are God as the creator and creation in action.> God is different things to different people. >When did this experience start? The answer is that it started: now!> Not estarted. There was not a etimef when it was not. > There are separate objects and what makes them what they are is what > makes them separate. >There are no *truly* separate objects. And any only relatively separate object is not a thing in itself: it is a no-thing.> No objects exist in separation. Object are not no-things, what makes them what they are is also not no-thing, and what allows them to manifest is not nothing. If by truly separate you mean that nothing can arise by itself independently, yes. >God is infinite and infinity never ends. Infinity starts *now* and will continue forever.> >You are wholeness experiencing itself, not doing itself> No, I am not wholeness experiencing itself. >But doing in the form of experience is of course a part of what is happening. But doing, such as actual making the universe alter its course by some individual will is sheer illusion.> The altering of the course of the universe is a person willing, these are not two. > The whole or all that is is not making itself what it is, or > unfolding itself by acting upon itself. >Not by acting, the whole unfolding now, *is*.> The only thing we can say about the whole is it IS. The whole is not acting on itself or unfolding by itfs own action on itself. > > There is no 'me', not any separate God> > > > It is a ME that says ..'There is no ME', asserting it's own existence. >Yes, but only as a form in totality> >A form is nothing in itself.> A ME is comprised of many levels of mental matter and being form does not make it nothing. If by nothing in itself you mean no form has an independent existence yes, but form is how ideas are expressed, how mind is expressed. Everything, every form serves a purpose as the form it is. > There are seperate Gods, as real as anything else, which can be > prayed to or to which we can show our devotion. >When I say a single infinite atomic event is all there is, then this may seem like some puny event, but this single events can contain an infinite number of gods creating an infinite number of universes in the span of one femtosecond and all of that within a tiny superstring in your left ear lobe. :-)> This is mythology. > There are seperate objects, even thoughts are seperate. > > *Nothing exists in seperation* > > There is a difference. <Yes, that is one way to see it. And then we must be careful what we mean by a separate object that cannot exist in separation. What is the object in itself?> There is no such thing as an object existing of and in itself. >The answer: " The object is what the object is " is not an explanation. The object exists only withing a larger framework, and that framework itself only exists withing the whole interconnectedness of reality, and not as a separate object. And we then see that no separate objects truly exist.> Yes, nothing arises or can be created of itself. > The 'me' is only an illusion of separation and > > of doing within a single infinite event. > > > What makes a ME what it is is what makes it seperate. > This seperation is not an illusion. > There is no single event that can DO. >The experience of being separate is not an illusion. But is the experience of being separate a permanent experience? I think not.> Yes, no phenomenon is permanent, as in meaning that it remains throughout time 'forever' no object can be because objects are their own duration ( time ). For the life span of each phenomenon that objects remains and defines what it means to be separate, objects are born and die and create time in the middle >No-thing-ness is not nothingness. So when we say no-thing is happening, we don't mean nothing is happening.> What then does eno-thing happeningf mean? >With one pencil we can draw many pictures. Similarly, the One Consciousness draws many forms making this reality happen.> All that is, or if you call consciousness the whole, does not act on itself as that whole to make reality happen. > > > Are you a body or the whole? > > > > > > The above ( my question to you ) is an ignorant question. > > > > I am the whole experiencing itself as a body. > > > How can the whole experience itself as a body? >In time> The whole is all there is including time. How can the whole experience itself within time? > The whole is all that is, cannot experience itself as anything. >If the whole is all that is, then there is nothing else than the whole being able to experience anything.> The whole being all that IS, cannot experience itself as anything. What can the whole experience itself as if the whole is all there is? > The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole experiencing > itself as a human body', it is a ME that says the above. >No, it is the whole experiencing itself as a ME> The whole cannot be the whole and be a ME. >in time experiencing the 'doing' of saying " I am the whole " > The whole cannot say it is the whole, only a ME can. >but this is in fact no real doing created by the ME. The ME is an *experience* the whole is having. An experience cannot itself *do* anything. The whole cannot experience itself through a ME, the whole is all that is including all experiences of a ME, everything. > > > There is, otherwise you couldn't brush your teeth. > > > > All separation is on the level of form only, and all form is an > > illusion (Maya). > > > What makes an object what it is is what makes the object a *seperate* > thing. >You cannot say: " The object is what makes it an object " > I said what makes an object what it is is what makes an object a separate thing. Which means that how objects manifest is what makes them separate and what allows us to define what separate means. >without having a framework, a context in which this object exists, and even this framework is only a part of totality in the form of form. The framework has no independent existence, and so how can an object dependent on such framework be said to be a separate thing? No object arises of itself or independently, but objects because of what they are are separate *things*. The non-seperation is not a thing. > Brushing your teeth is not an illusion. >There has never been anyone brushing any teeth> There has and continues to be people brushing their teeth, it is something that you also would do yourself. > Maya refers to the inherent illusionary or true nature of objects. > i.e that they are inherently not real in essence. > > Brushing teeth is not Maya. >All form is Maya. Maya means 'that which can be measured', including your body and the tooth brush> Maya is a term used to describe an aspect or truth about the nature of phenomenon. Brushing your teeth is not this truth. Maya is a description or pointer to show the essential nature of all phenomenon. By saying all is Maya we mean all phenomenon are essentially unreal. But after that is realized, why is there a need to re-state this truth when referring to everyday occurrences such as brushing teeth or eating apples? When brushing our teeth or talking about it we do not need to mention the essential nature of ourselves and the toothbrush. When we brush our teeth we are only brushing our teeth, and when you chop wood you only chop wood. >Your body is not an entity!!!!! We are not objects. You are caught in the dream of separation. (So am I) :-) We are entities comprised of different levels of mental matter cooperating as one unit. What makes us separate entities is real. > > The One Consciousness is all there is> > > > Then this consciousness is not conscious. >It is conscious now. It is you.> No, eyouf is conscious, and if consciousness is all there is then this consciousness is also not conscious > >This consciousness experiences > > itself as form due to self-relation. > >Consciousness related to itself > > in all possible forms is the single state that is unfolding now. > > Consciousness as phenomenon touches consciousness as phenomenon. > This consciousness is not conscious. >If consciousness is all there is, then what can be conscious but consciousness itself?> Saying consciousness is all there IS and that all that is is conscious or aware is giving phenomenon the power to be aware. Nothing that exists is aware. > > By who? By consciousness, of course. What else is there? ;-) > > > If consciousness is all there IS, it is not consciousness that is > conscious. >There can only be one 'stuff', as I have explained, and that one stuff is the One Consciousness, or what you want to call it.> There is not only one stuff / substance, substance is phenomenal and if all was the same one stuff phenomenally nothing would be different, different objects would not exist; there is one quality, mental. > No, if consciousness is all there IS, consciousness is *not* > conscious. > > Consciousness is not all that IS, *and* conscious. > > Ramesh Balsekar and others from the Advaita Vedanta tradition say > this statement and people quote it but then also say that this > consciousness is aware or conscious, this is not correct. >There can only be one 'stuff' in existence> Not the same stuff or the same phenomenonally. Everything is of the same nature, mental. > > > 'You' and 'ME' have 'already gone'. > > > > Yes, we are history. :-) > > > Yes, along with every-thing else. >But an ongoing history!> Yes. > People, and not just people, do die and what makes them what they are > is what makes them die, what makes people grieve when people die > is also a part of what makes us what we are. >There has never been any person alive or dead!> There has and there will continue to be people born and die, and not only people. You and I will both will one day die, other people will grieve this loss and others will be born, you if you have not already can choose to participate in creating another human life yourself also. >All there is is now. Everything exists over all time as one whole NOW.. >The past is also now> If you are speaking of the whole NOW, then all exists, everything, body when what where why. >Abraham Lincoln is not a 'being', he is a form appearing now, and only now> As a moment in time; Abraham Lincoln is not appearing now. Abraham Lincoln is not alive now. As the eternal now, in which all is; Abraham Lincoln and everything else that is included, there is nothing outside of ethisf Abraham is not a form appearing now >There never has been any past> There has been a definite past, and we are making the past what it is now. >The only past there is is now. Abraham Lincoln is now. Only now. :-)> Past and future exist over eall timef, this eeternal nowf includes all of the future and all of the past. If you were to estretchf now both sides of past and future, all would be encompassed as a single NOW. But the past and future still exist and are definite and real. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > As reflected selfs / MEs we must participate in the world. > > > > We do not need to get rid of an ego or pretend that life is just no- > > thing happening. > > >When for example Tony Parsons says that life is no-thing happening, I > don't think he pretends that this is so, for him it is a fact, or he > is lying. :-)> > > Tony Parsons is a ME, and just like you or me Tony Parsons sees the > world in the same way as you and me do, plus or minus the bias of > personal inherentness of that unique reflected self / ME. " The difference between you and me " , Tony says to a questioner, " is that you own something called 'you' " . > > > >And, of course, for a non-realized person like me, to > say that the world is no-thing happening is only a belief, a very > firm intellectual conclusion, but nonetheless only a belief> > > Tony Parsons is not a realized or enlightened person and you are not > an unrealized or unenlightened person. Any intellectual conclusion > asserts your existence as a separate ME. Tony says: " Being asleep and being awake [realized] are the same thing " > > > > *We* cannot avoid the world and pretend that no-thing is happening. > > >Intellectually I can see very clearly that the world is no-thing > happening> > > If you are seeing this intellectually then it is a conception of what > you believe, by a ME that is participating and asserting itself as > that ME. Yes, as long as the understanding is only intellectual, there is no realization. > > >because there cannot really be separate things. A truly > separate thing would not be a part of existence!> > > There are seperate things, nothing exists in seperation. > > There cannot be things without what we call separation because what > they are is what makes them separate. > At the level of non-seperation we can no longer speak about separate > objects because at a certain level an apple is no longer an apple, so > it is meaningless to speak of it being separate. > At the level of separation, where things are different from one > another, one must speak about separate objects because at this level > of manifestation this is how they appear, and this is what allows us > to define what separation itself is. It is the 'meaningless' fundamental level of existence I am talking about when I say that there are no separate objects. I believe that it is this interconnected dimension that is called no-mind, emptiness, the unmanifested e t c. The awareness of this fundamental level is what Eckhart Tolle calls object consciousness. You are talking about what he calls object consciousness which is ordinary thinking. > > > > Whilst we are here we *must* participate. > > Even suicide is not an escape from this participation. > > > > Btw, Have you read Herman Hesses' 'Siddartha'? > > >No, I haven't read Siddartha> > > The story is somewhat related to what I have said above. > If you get the chance to read it see what you think. > > > >I think it is interesting to think about all people, including > myself, as a form appearing now. This means that there never has been > any past. No Dalai Lama, no Adolf Hitler, and no Margareth Thatcher, > and no Anders Lindman. :-)> > > All of the above people have existed, and the past could not have > been the past, eis notf the past ( and the whole ), without them. > > >There has never been anyone!> Marylin > Monroe is a form appearing now. You are a form appearing now. There > has never been anyone being born> > > There has been a Marilyn Monroe, and there continues to be people > born and people die, this is a part of reality and a part of what > makes the whole what it is. You are talking about form. Form is 'born' and form 'dies'. We can think of form as a wave on an ocean. A wave is born and a wave dies. So, if we call a certain wave Charlie, then this wave dies, and we ask: has there been a wave called Charlie? O yes, we answer, I remember Charlie so well. Similarly, every human body is nothing but a complex 'wave'. Do you understand, at least intellectually, what Nisargadatta meant when he said that you are not the body? > > > >There has never been anyone who has > died. Form cannot be born> > > There has, people are born and people die. > Form itself changes and this includes what happens during the process > of dying. Yes, people as form. But a form is in itself not a conscious being. > > >Form cannot die. Form is not a 'thing' in > itself.> > > What we call death is a changing of form, man is made of many > different levels of mind co-operating together as a whole, death is > the disintegration of the physical sheath. Yes, I will correct myself here, form *is* what we call things. And deformation/remoulding of form we could call birth and death. > > > >There has never been anyone making 100000 bows in front of a > chosen deity. :-)> > > There has been and there still is, and you could do this also if you > wanted to. Oh no, a form cannot do anything. > > >If Abraham Lincoln is now and _only_ now, then is > he dead or is he alive? > > Now is either a moment in time, in which case, every moment of > Abraham Lincolns life consisted of a series of in-time nows, or NOW > is eall timef, and this has nothing to do with time and includes > *everything* I find it interesting to ponder over the idea that now is the only now there is. A remembered now is not a real now, but only a memory in this now, the only now there is. You must admit that a memory of a now is not an evidence that the memory is about a real now that has happened in some 'real' past. A memory of a past now, is just that: a memory. > > > >The standard answer is that now he is dead > and in the past he was alive, but what if there is only now, then the > past is also now> > > Maybe you are confusing now as a moment in time and NOW with > the 'eternal now' which has nothing to do with time. > You are speaking of now as a moment in time and NOW as the eternal in > the same statement. What you call a now as a moment in time I call memory. A memory is not a real now. There is only now, the 'eternal now', and this now includes other imaginary 'nows' only in the form of memory. > > >So, does this mean Abraham Lincoln is both dead and > alive in this Now? No, it means that Abramam Lincoln is a > ****FORM**** in the now. > > Abraham Lincoln and everything else exists in what we call the > eternal NOW, eover all timef this includes everything, every > occurrence, every who what when and why. > > >A form is not a thing. A form cannot live> > > I beg your pardon? > > There is no form that is not living. > There is nothing dead in the entire universe. Yes, that is true. Form is what makes objects seem separate. But form is never a really separate object, so what I mean is that a separate object cannot live independently from anything else. A dead human body and a living human body are the same One life. Think of the material universe as being a dream in the One Mind. If you see a dead body and a living body in a dream when sleeping, then what is the difference between the dead body and the living body. If both bodies are parts of your dream, then the bodies are only appearances in your mind. Similarly, what we call our real bodies are only appearances in Maya, the dream that the One Mind is having right now. When you dream about a person who does not exist in the real world, then this person is exactly as real as for example Hillary Clinton. It is only on the level of relative comparison Hillary Clinton is called a real person, and a person in a dream a mind-made person. The truth I believe is that all persons are mind-made, but on different levels. > > >A form cannot die. What does this mean? > > > *Forms* do die, change, part of our dying process as individuals is > the changing and destruction of the physical sheath, organized forms > deteriorate. > Form itself doesnft get destroyed or cease to exist it simply > changes from a certain type of organized form into something else, or > a different dis-organization of form, this is our death. > Every moment of our lives our physical form is slowly > disintegrating / eagingf. > Death is a process of changing form. > > >It means that the world is NO- > THING happening> > > Things are happening, like this email, things also happen to things, > the whole is all this which includes all and every happening, who > what when where why Yes, no-thing is happening. By no-thing I mean consciousness, and not nothing. Consciousness is a no-thing, it is not a thing, but it is not nothing. When you drink a glass of water in you dream, a no-thing is happening. When you drink a glass of water in the 'real' world, the same no-thing is happening. > > >It means that all there is is consciousness, or call > it the Mind of God, the One, or whatever> > > Saying that all is consciousness is misleading because it is then > stated or thought that this consciousness which is all that exists, > is conscious, which is not the case. > Nothing that exists is aware. > We can say that the all is mental or everything is of a mental > nature, or there is nothing outside of mind. Only consciousness is conscious, and consciousness is all there is. > > > > Every physical object is a seperate object and there are seperate > > objects in other realms of existence also; a thought is also a > > seperate object. > > >Objects are separate in the sense that it is possible to > differentiate between them> > > Objects are separate because they manifest differently over different > levels from a different root cause. The manifestation from the top to > the bottom is what causes the discreteness seen in manifestation. There is no true discreteness in existence. Everything is interrelated into a whole web. > > > >A wave in the ocen is separate from > another wave in the ocean. Of course! But there is an > interconnectedness between separate objects, and it is in this > connectedness we find reality, what is> > > Objects are separate because of the way they manifest and exist, > every object in the physical shares the same the same eprocess of > descentf, otherwise it could not be a physical object. There are no physical objects. All is Maya, the One Mind dreaming. > Its difference is in the manifestation to the physical. > Separation is only meaningful to speak of in terms of objects, and > when we are speaking in terms of objects these objects are separate, > it is the objects themselves that let us define what we know of as > separation. Yes, that kind of separation exists, but no real separation exists. > > > >Objects only exist as > relative waves. Objects have no independent existence> > > Yes, no-thing has any independent existence. > > > >Objects are > forms (or ripples) in the One Consciousness> > > Objects are manifestations of mind or mind manifest. > > >The One Consciousness is > all there is.> > > The eall is mindf, the nature of the universe is ementalf. > The Advaita people say eall there is is consciousness', but it > probably does more to confuse by saying this. Would you prefer: all there is is mind? To me, mind and consciousness is the same 'thing'. > > > > A human body is a seperate object and what makes it what it is is > > what makes it seperate; how it manifests over the levels of > existence > > that it is comprised of. > > >A human body is not made of different kinds of 'stuff'. If stuff 'A' > was truly separate from stuff 'B', then they would not be part of the > same existence.> > > > All is not econsciousnessf as the same estuff', everything is of a > mental nature, and mind is expressed in many different forms. 'Everything is of a mental nature, and mind is expressed in many different forms' is the same as what I mean by 'everything is consciousness'. I think we have different ideas about what consciousness 'is'. I see reality as one wholeness, a totality, and that totality we can call consciousness or mind or whatever. > Our > thoughts are expressions of mental matter but even they are different > and what they each are is what makes them different. > > What makes us separate as individual beings is differing > manifestation of mental matter and the complexities of how this > matter is formed into organized structure. > If we compare consciousness to clay and say a pot is made of clay and > so is a cup, yet both are still clay, it points to the notion of > everything being made of one substance, but everything is not made of > one substance, everything is made of different substances, who have > as their commonality the quality of mind. > > Different substances, different type of mental matter is organized > into different functions of complexity for different purposes. > You might say everything is vibration, but this changing vibration > makes things different. It is all vibration as a quality but all > vibration is not the same as all vibration, if it were there would > not be any difference in anything. > > In the same way we could say that the whole and everything in it > shares the root nature of ementalityf, but this is expressed and > organized differently forming different things. > I think the clay or substance model points to everything being of one > enaturef but not that everything is one thing or substance. > This is part of the problems with words, in that it is not now that > we are discussing reality but that we are discussing our use of > definitions that comprise what we call reality. There is only one 'substance' and that is consciousness. And this is not a substance in the ordianry sense; consciousness has no size, color, shape or form. When you dream about a piece of silver and a piece of gold, then there is the _appearance_ of different substances, but all there is is pure consciousness. Similarly, in the 'real' world, gold and silver are the same Maya experienced from different 'angles'. > > > >So the human body is made of one 'stuff'> > > Nothing is made of the same or one *stuff* ( all stuff is > phenomenal ), because if it were there would only be one thing / > stuff, without difference. I mean the noumenal 'stuff'. > Everything is made from modifications or expressions by one activity, > which is mental. > A human or any other physical object is made of different layers of > different stuff with the commonality of the same quality, i.e it > consists of layers of mind, the physical being the most dense > expression, these layers of mind are *different* from one another. > > We could say that what we call mind is one thing but that mind is > expressed over many differing levels of expression, objects and > things, including subtle things such as thoughts are expression in > this spectrum of ( mental ) matter. Every part of the manifestation > of a thing is spread across a spectrum of difference, and it is this > difference that we call mind, the all. Yes, mind is one 'thing' experienceing itself in many forms. > > >A rock or a > tree are made of the same 'stuff'. This one stuff is the One > Consciousness in which no things are truly separate. A thing is not > something other than the One Consciousness in relation to itself.> > > Rocks and trees are not made of the same stuff. eStufff in > whichever way we talk about it is phenomenal, and being phenomenal, > rocks and trees are made of different substances. > All objects exist over *different* levels of mind, this is what makes > them separate. > Rocks and trees share the similarity of existing over the same layers > of mind, but they are different, are organized differently > strructurally, perform different functions, have different > capabilities etc. If all there is is mind then this mind is the one 'stuff'. > > > >All there is is the One Consciousness. If there would be > another 'thing' > in existence is must be related somehow to the One Consciousness, but > that which relates the other thing with the One Consciousness cannot > be a separate object, and thus must be the One Consciousness itself.> > > Yes, there is nothing outside of mind. > > >And that means that the other thing must also be the One > Consciousness, or else it would be a truly separate thing, and as we > have seen, a truly separate thing cannot be a part of existence.> > > Yes, nothing exists in separation, there is no such thing as an > object having an independent of itself existence. > > > > > >I am the whole > > > > experiencing a human body.> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'You' are the *whole* ( all there is ) and you are experiencing > a > > > > human body? > > > > > > The whole is experiencing all human bodies, > > > > > > How can the *whole* experience anything? > > The whole IS. > > >You *are* the whole experienceing itself> > > No, I am not the whole experiencing itself. > How can the whole, which is all there IS experience itself? All-there-is is experienceing itself in time, right now. I see everything as a single infinite event happening now. This single event is the whole, it includes you and everything else. This single event is all-there-is. This event started now and will go on forever. There has never been any real past. What we call the past is a memory in this single event that started *now*. :-) I think this is an interesting view of how reality works. Reality began now. Who has lived in the past? No one! The past _also_ began now. This is what I mean by that there never has been any persons. Abraham Lincoln, a person? No, Abraham Lincoln is only a memory. How about me, has there never been any me? What about my childhood, what about my body being a baby? No, my body began *now*. The entire universe began *now*. > > > >You cannot know yourself, you can only be yourself. > > > No, no ME can know. A ME can only know _about_ something else that is not the ME. Take away all the things a ME know _about_ and what is left? > > > >Knowledge is only possible when we have a subject - object > relationship. In oneness > there is only being.> > > Subject and object are never two, except when subject is > conceptualized as object or phenomenon is conceptualized as the > originator of subject. When I look at a tree, that I am the subject and the tree the object. Of course, I and the tree are fundamentally one, but on the level of phenomenality there is a subject-object relationship. > > > >Oneness cannot know oneness as an object without > itself becoming and object. Oneness can only *be* oneness.> > > Oneness, Wholeness cannot experience itself or become its object > because it is everything. Wholeness is all there IS. What you call the 'eternal now' is the only now and when we realize this we step out of the dream of thought. The whole experince itself in time, and time began now. Infinity began now. We live in infinity, and infinity has no end, but it has a beginning: now. You are the whole experiencing itself now. > > >And you *are* oneness.> > > No, neither you nor me are oneness. > > >As I have expained again, and again, there *are no > separate things*. ;-)> > > There are separate things, nothing exists in seperation. > A watch is separate from a tree, this separation is what makes the > object what it is and what allows us to define what separation is. Yes, on the level of experience there are separate appearances. We can think of material objects as waves in space. A wave is separate and yet not really separate from everything else. > > > > and I am simply one of > > > them. > > > > > > You are a human body and the whole? > > >Yes sir!> > > How can you be a human body and be the whole ( all that is )? This is the no-thing-ness happening. This is 'emptiness' happening, but it is not emptiness in the form of nothing, it is the no thing, it is not a thing, but it is not nothing: it is the one consciousness happening. A human body is a ripple, wave form in consciousness, or call it the one mind. You look at a body and see it as an object, but the body is not an object. The body is only an object in the form of appearance. > > > > > > How can the whole *experience* anything? > > > > > > You consciousness *is* the One Consciousness, the whole > > experiencing > > > itself. > > > > > > The whole cannot experience itself, cannot act on itself, reflect > on > > itself, or will. > > >Would you admit that there cannot possibly exist any truly separate > object?> > > Yes, no object has any independent existence. > > >But how can an > object with *no* relations whatsoever with the rest of reality be a > part of reality. It can't! > > > The whole has no other relations, it IS, it canft act on itself and > doesn't make itself what it is. The human body and the whole are not two. > > >So, what we then have is the whole and only the whole. There is > nothing other than the whole.> > > Yes, the whole is all there IS. > The whole then cannot act *on* itself, reflect itself or will itself > because the whole is all, there is nothing else. The whole is playing a game of hide-and-seek with itself. > > > > > > The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole > > > experiencing > > > > a human body'. > > > > The whole cannot experience itself or a human body. > > > > > > > > A *ME* says 'I am the whole...', asserting it's own existence, > > and > > > is > > > > bound as that ME. > > > > > > Everything is bound to everything else. > > > > > > Things are not bound to other things. > > > > A ME is bound to *itself*. > > >As I have explained: there are no separate objects!> > > It is meaningless to speak about objects and then say there are no > separate objects because what makes and allows them to be objects is > how we define seperation. > You could say there is no separation, and not speak about objects at > all or say something similar to what Chuang Tzu said; The being of > separate beings is non-separate being. Yes, what Chuang Tzy says here is that non-separate being is what *is* and that the being of separate beings is nothing but that One non-separate being. > > > > > >So everybody is the whole experiencing itself in different > forms> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, everybody is not the whole experiencing itself in different > > > forms. > > > > > > Everything is interconnected, so everything *is* one whole. > > > > > > Everything is not and does not equal the whole. > > >I see everything as the same as the whole.> > > Everything is not the whole, one thing is not the whole, and the > addition of everything is not the whole. 'Every thing' is appearance. 'Everything' is the whole. > > > > The sum is not equal to the sum of the parts. > > >There are no parts. Never has been. Never will be. By part I mean > something that can be truly separated from the rest of existence.> > > Yes, nothing exists independently, nothing exists in separation. > > > Everybody is not the whole experiencing itself. > > >The whole is the only 'thing' there is.> > > The whole is all there is and you and me are not all there is. You and me are the whole. > > > Can the whole ( all that is ) experience itself? > > >We are doing it right now! :-)> > > No we aren't. > The whole is everything including all MEs and their experiences. > How can the whole, all that IS experience itself if it is all there > IS? The whole has many facets and one facet, one viewpoint is you. The whole began experience itself now, but it will continue to experience itself forever, because what is infinite has no end, so we can say that the whole is experiencing itself fully now, but this experienceing of itself will never end. Infinity is experiencing itself in a single instant: now. But this single instant has no end. > > > The ALL is 'mental' yes and there is nothing outside of 'mind'. > > 'Over all time', the eternal now, everything is fully encompassed. > > >We don't need to say the eternal now, just now will be enough.> > > Yes, we do, the now referred to above is not a moment in time. > We say eternal now or NOW in capitals to distinguish from now as a > moment in time. > You have used both these terms in the same sentence previously > without making a clear distinction. We can only distinguish different nows in the form of memory. I am not talking about memory, because memory is a part of the _only_ actual now there is. > > > The One Mind is a happening/experiencing, not a > > > doing. > > > > > > Yes, Wholeness cannot think act, will, make a decision or DO. > > >That's right, because there never has been, is, or ever will be a > truly separate entity able to act in any way or form> > > No, because wholeness is all there is, and is not capable of willing > itself or making itself what it is. > There are individual entities, and all of these entities make the > whole what it is, the whole cannot act on itself. > Beings as separate beings can and do act, it is the whole that cannot > act and has no will. No one has any will other than the experience of will and it is the whole happening now which makes reality what it is. > > " There is no separate intelligence weaving a destiny and no choice > functioning at any level> > > I don't know Tony Parsons means eby separate intelligencef, but the > capacity for intelligence and the mental faculty for providing it > exists IN the individual, even using the term precisely, the > individuals mind is a part of each ME, and it is separate and unique > to each ME. What makes us individuals is this limitation of mind > thought and intellect which exists discretely. Nothing in reality is truly discrete. > > >Nothing is happening but this, as it is> > > Nothing is happening but this, as it is = everything is happening as > it is. > > >invites the apparent seeker to rediscover that which is> > > If a seeker is seeking a ME is bound. The seeker can never know. Not know maybe, but realize perhaps that there never was any seeker, only an apparen seeker as Tony says. > > . . . the > abiding, uncaused, unchanging, impersonal silence from which > unconditional love overflows and celebrates. It is the wonderful > mystery. " -- Tony Parsons > > The wonderful mystery that Tony Parsons is speaking about, is an > interpretation that he has given to reality as a ME. I think he points to some deeper realization than an intellectual interpretation. > > > > This single event is absolute; it cannot do anything, > > > but the unfolding of this event is what we are experiencing now - > > all > > > of it. > > > > > > The whole is not a single event. > > The whole, all that IS, can be given one description; it IS. > > >Yes, but on an intellectual level, I think that my theory about > everything being one atomic infinite event happening now is > interesting. It is not even my idea. I think Wayne Liquorman > described reality in a similar way, and that is where I got the idea > from.> > > It can only be interesting to a ME that is bound, if it is > interesting, amazing or even divine, that ME is bound. Bound or not bound, God is the only experiencer. :-) > > > > Can all that IS, *experience* itself? > > >Yes, in time! The whole is experiencing itself now, but this > experience is not finished yet, it will never end!> > > The whole includes time, how can the whole experience itself in time? Time began now. Reality is a single infinite event that began now. So time is just the effect of this single event being infinite, which means that this event will go on forever, even though it is just one single event. This creates the appearence of motion which we interpret as time. > > > >We are the whole experiencing itself> > > No, we are not the whole experiencing itself. It is always difficult to talk about the whole and use words like 'is'. When something 'is', then it 'is' within a relational framework. So maybe to say that we 'are' the whole becomes misleading. > > >We are God as the creator and creation in action.> > > God is different things to different people. Yes, I only use the word God to get a less sterile concept of the whole, totality e t c. When describing what is like I do, I find that what I describe sounds like shallow mathematical concepts, and they *are* that :-), but I sometimes want to a more rich description. for example, instead of predetermined we can say the Will of God, or fate as the flow of life. > > >When did this experience start? The answer is that it started: now! > > > Not estarted. > There was not a etimef when it was not. Of course not. Because there never was any other time than now. But there is a start in the form of an apparent Big Bang and perhaps other starts before that. All of that is now. > > > There are separate objects and what makes them what they are is > what > > makes them separate. > > >There are no *truly* separate objects. And any only relatively > separate object is not a thing in itself: it is a no-thing.> > > No objects exist in separation. > Object are not no-things, what makes them what they are is also not > no-thing, and what allows them to manifest is not nothing. > If by truly separate you mean that nothing can arise by itself > independently, yes. I see objects as waves in the now. A wave is separate and yet not really separate. > > >God is infinite and infinity never ends. Infinity starts *now* and > will continue forever.> > >You are wholeness experiencing itself, not doing itself> > > No, I am not wholeness experiencing itself. Yes, I will correct myself here. Maybe it is not correct to use 'is' in relation to the whole. > > >But doing in > the form of experience is of course a part of what is happening. But > doing, such as actual making the universe alter its course by some > individual will is sheer illusion.> > > The altering of the course of the universe is a person willing, these > are not two. Yes, that is correct. A person willing and the universe unfolding are the same happening. But I see it as the universe unfolding is what is happening and the person willing just a result of that. The universe unfolding is a wholeness, an infinitely complex interrelated net of 'particles' and 'waves' in motion. The thoughts you are thinking are related to every grain of sand on Earth and to every hydrogen atom in every star in the universe. Everything affects everything else. There are no independent events. > > > The whole or all that is is not making itself what it is, or > > unfolding itself by acting upon itself. > > >Not by acting, the whole unfolding now, *is*.> > > The only thing we can say about the whole is it IS. > The whole is not acting on itself or unfolding by itfs own action on > itself. The unfolding of this complex web we call life happens. It happens like this, because it cannot be otherwise. > > > > > There is no 'me', not any separate God> > > > > > > It is a ME that says ..'There is no ME', asserting it's own > existence. > > >Yes, but only as a form in totality> > >A form is nothing in itself.> > > A ME is comprised of many levels of mental matter and being form does > not make it nothing. > If by nothing in itself you mean no form has an independent existence > yes, but form is how ideas are expressed, how mind is expressed. > Everything, every form serves a purpose as the form it is. Yes, form is purpose. Form is experience and meaning. A wave on the ocean is a form, the wave is not an object in itself, yet it is an object in an interrelated and relative way. Every form is interrelated and relative. > > > > There are seperate Gods, as real as anything else, which can be > > prayed to or to which we can show our devotion. > > >When I say a single infinite atomic event is all there is, then this > may seem like some puny event, but this single events can contain an > infinite number of gods creating an infinite number of universes in > the span of one femtosecond and all of that within a tiny superstring > in your left ear lobe. :-)> > > This is mythology. Or fantasy. But it could be true! That's why I used the word 'can' contain... :-) > > > There are seperate objects, even thoughts are seperate. > > > > *Nothing exists in seperation* > > > > There is a difference. > > <Yes, that is one way to see it. And then we must be careful what we > mean by a separate object that cannot exist in separation. What is > the object in itself?> > > There is no such thing as an object existing of and in itself. > > >The answer: " The object is what the object is " > is not an explanation. The object exists only withing a larger > framework, and that framework itself only exists withing the whole > interconnectedness of reality, and not as a separate object. And we > then see that no separate objects truly exist.> > > Yes, nothing arises or can be created of itself. > > > The 'me' is only an illusion of separation and > > > of doing within a single infinite event. > > > > > > What makes a ME what it is is what makes it seperate. > > This seperation is not an illusion. > > There is no single event that can DO. > > >The experience of being separate is not an illusion. But is the > experience of being separate a permanent experience? I think not.> > > Yes, no phenomenon is permanent, as in meaning that it remains > throughout time 'forever' no object can be because objects are their > own duration ( time ). > For the life span of each phenomenon that objects remains and defines > what it means to be separate, objects are born and die and create > time in the middle > > >No-thing-ness is not nothingness. So when we say no-thing is > happening, we don't mean nothing is happening.> > > What then does eno-thing happeningf mean? When Tony Parsons said this he mentioned that people would try to figure out what this meant or dismiss it totally, because the [human] mind does not like this at all, he said. I see intellectually what he meant, but this is perhaps not what he really meant at all. This is what I think he meant: By no-thing he means noumenal existence. This is what the dictionary says about 'noumenal': " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. Also called thing-in-itself. " By independent of the mind, Kant must have meant the phenomenal mind, or what Eckart Tolle calls 'object consciousness'. Noumenal existence is the one consciousness, or the One Mind, and this Mind has no size, color or form, it is not a phenomenal 'thing', it is not a thing, it is a no-thing. Noumenal existence is all there is, all that has real existence. Form, such as matter, thoughts e t c, has no real existence. So, no-thing happening is noumenal existence expressed in phenomenal form. Form happening has no real existence at all, it is all Maya. This means that objects like the human body or a coin or a tree has no real existence. The human body is not happening. It is noumenal existence happening giving rise to the _experience_ of form, such as a human body, a thought or a tree. Or we could call noumenal existence the One Mind experiencing itself. The only 'thing' that can have independent existence, meaning absolute existence, meaning real existence, is no-thing-ness. So, what in Buddhism is called emptiness is the same as no-thing-ness, and this is not nothingness, instead it is the infinite potential that simply _is_ without being a thing in itself. > > >With one pencil we can draw many pictures. Similarly, the One > Consciousness draws many forms making this reality happen.> > > All that is, or if you call consciousness the whole, does not act on > itself as that whole to make reality happen. > > > > > > Are you a body or the whole? > > > > > > > > The above ( my question to you ) is an ignorant question. > > > > > > I am the whole experiencing itself as a body. > > > > > > How can the whole experience itself as a body? > > >In time> > > The whole is all there is including time. > How can the whole experience itself within time? Thw whole experiences itself now. But this experience will never end even though it is just one single 'no thing' event. This single event goes on and on, and that makes the appearance of time. > > > > The whole is all that is, cannot experience itself as anything. > > >If the whole is all that is, then there is nothing else than the > whole being able to experience anything.> > > The whole being all that IS, cannot experience itself as anything. > What can the whole experience itself as if the whole is all there is? The now is the whole experiencing only a part of itself. The whole _is_ experiencing itself in its totality, but the whole has not yet experienced itself fully because it is infinite. :-) > > > > The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole > experiencing > > itself as a human body', it is a ME that says the above. > > >No, it is the whole experiencing itself as a ME> > > The whole cannot be the whole and be a ME. If we think of the whole as one person. Then this person can experience himself or herself as other persons. How? When a person is having a dream then there may be many other persons in the dream. How can there be many persons in one mind?!!! Similarly, the One Mind must probably have an infinite capacity for 'dreaming', creating world and universes endlessly without limit: the One and the Many. > > >in time experiencing > the 'doing' of saying " I am the whole " > > > The whole cannot say it is the whole, only a ME can. But the ME is a dream character in the One Mind. > > >but this is in fact no real > doing created by the ME. The ME is an *experience* the whole is > having. An experience cannot itself *do* anything. > > The whole cannot experience itself through a ME, the whole is all > that is including all experiences of a ME, everything. Right now you are experiencing two separate images as one. One image from your left eye, and another image from your right eye. Similarly, but in a reversed fashion, the One Mind can experience itself in many facets, all of them seemingly separate. > > > > > > There is, otherwise you couldn't brush your teeth. > > > > > > All separation is on the level of form only, and all form is an > > > illusion (Maya). > > > > > > What makes an object what it is is what makes the object a > *seperate* > > thing. > > >You cannot say: " The object is what makes it an object " > > > I said what makes an object what it is is what makes an object a > separate thing. > Which means that how objects manifest is what makes them separate and > what allows us to define what separate means. Yes, when we talk about something 'is', then we are talking about relative co-existent objects. But what I am trying to point to is that the only 'thing' that _is_ is noumenal existence and that when we say that an object _is_ we are talking about relative existence in phenomenality. > > >without > having a framework, a context in which this object exists, and even > this framework is only a part of totality in the form of form. The > framework has no independent existence, and so how can an object > dependent on such framework be said to be a separate thing? > > No object arises of itself or independently, but objects because of > what they are are separate *things*. The non-seperation is not a > thing. True, things can only be defined in relative co-dependent existence, which is the world of form, or phenomenality. I am trying to point to noumenal, or absolute reality. > > > > Brushing your teeth is not an illusion. > > >There has never been anyone brushing any teeth> > > There has and continues to be people brushing their teeth, it is > something that you also would do yourself. Yes, but the tooth brush is just a phenomenon, and so is my body. They are not things-in-themselves. > > > Maya refers to the inherent illusionary or true nature of objects. > > i.e that they are inherently not real in essence. > > > > Brushing teeth is not Maya. > > >All form is Maya. Maya means 'that which can be measured', including > your body and the tooth brush> > > Maya is a term used to describe an aspect or truth about the nature > of phenomenon. > Brushing your teeth is not this truth. > Maya is a description or pointer to show the essential nature of all > phenomenon. > By saying all is Maya we mean all phenomenon are essentially unreal. > But after that is realized, why is there a need to re-state this > truth when referring to everyday occurrences such as brushing teeth > or eating apples? > When brushing our teeth or talking about it we do not need to mention > the essential nature of ourselves and the toothbrush. When we brush > our teeth we are only brushing our teeth, and when you chop wood you > only chop wood. Yes, Maya is the phenomenal world as I understand it, and Maya is all pheonomenon, in Maya there are no things-in-themselves. So what really _is_ is what is the 'not two' substrate, or noumenal reality. What Eckart Tolle describes as 'space consciousness' is the stepping out of the focusing on _only_ Maya, to realize that awareness which embraces all phenomenon. This awareness is of course always there, but it becomes obscured by the total focus on the world of things. > > > >Your body is not an entity!!!!! We are > not objects. You are caught in the dream of separation. (So am I) :- ) > > We are entities comprised of different levels of mental matter > cooperating as one unit. > What makes us separate entities is real. > > > > The One Consciousness is all there is> > > > > > > Then this consciousness is not conscious. > > >It is conscious now. It is you.> > > No, eyouf is conscious, and if consciousness is all there is then > this consciousness is also not conscious Would you prefer to call the One Consciousness the One Mind? It is the same 'thing' or rather no-thing ('no thing'). Only a 'no thing' can have absolute existence. > > > > >This consciousness experiences > > > itself as form due to self-relation. > > >Consciousness related to itself > > > in all possible forms is the single state that is unfolding now. > > > > Consciousness as phenomenon touches consciousness as phenomenon. > > This consciousness is not conscious. > > >If consciousness is all there is, then what can be conscious but > consciousness itself?> > > Saying consciousness is all there IS and that all that is is > conscious or aware is giving phenomenon the power to be aware. > Nothing that exists is aware. It depends on what we mean by " exists " . I see consciousness as the only existence that is absolute. Consciousness is both that which is aware and the inherent phenomenal world it is being aware of. > > > > By who? By consciousness, of course. What else is there? ;-) > > > > > > If consciousness is all there IS, it is not consciousness that is > > conscious. > > >There can only be one 'stuff', as I have explained, and that one > stuff is the One Consciousness, or what you want to call it.> > > There is not only one stuff / substance, substance is phenomenal and > if all was the same one stuff phenomenally nothing would be > different, different objects would not exist; there is one quality, > mental. I mean 'stuff' as something being a thing-in-itself, not relative stuff. > > > > No, if consciousness is all there IS, consciousness is *not* > > conscious. > > > > Consciousness is not all that IS, *and* conscious. > > > > Ramesh Balsekar and others from the Advaita Vedanta tradition say > > this statement and people quote it but then also say that this > > consciousness is aware or conscious, this is not correct. > > >There can only be one 'stuff' in existence> > > Not the same stuff or the same phenomenonally. > Everything is of the same nature, mental. Yes, mental 'stuff'. > > > > > 'You' and 'ME' have 'already gone'. > > > > > > Yes, we are history. :-) > > > > > > Yes, along with every-thing else. > > >But an ongoing history!> > > Yes. > > > People, and not just people, do die and what makes them what they > are > > is what makes them die, what makes people grieve when people die > > is also a part of what makes us what we are. > > >There has never been any person alive or dead!> > > There has and there will continue to be people born and die, and not > only people. > You and I will both will one day die, other people will grieve this > loss and others will be born, you if you have not already can choose > to participate in creating another human life yourself also. The world is Maya. There is no one in the world! :-) We are all One. " Discover all that you are not--body, feelings, thoughts, time, space, this or that--nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realize that you are the limitless being. " -- Nisargadatta Maharaj If you are not a body, no one else is a body either. I think Maharaj also said: " this world is unreal to the core " . What he then meant was probably that this world is Maya, that as Maya it is of course real, but the material world is just like a virtual reality. There are no separate persons. All is One Mind. > > >All there is is now. > > Everything exists over all time as one whole NOW.. > > >The past is also now> > > If you are speaking of the whole NOW, then all exists, everything, > body when what where why. > > > >Abraham Lincoln is not a 'being', he is a form > appearing now, and only now> > > As a moment in time; > Abraham Lincoln is not appearing now. > Abraham Lincoln is not alive now. > > As the eternal now, in which all is; > > Abraham Lincoln and everything else that is included, there is > nothing outside of ethisf > Abraham is not a form appearing now Abraham is _only_ a form appearing now. Your body is also only a form appearing now. There has never been a past you. You take a memory and think of it as a reality that has happened in the past. But all memory happens now, and only now. You have never been a baby other than as a memory or thought-form appearing now. Can you prove that I am wrong? ;-) You were born *now*. Sure, your memories about the past are real, but these memories are now, and only now. The entire past is created now. > > >There never has been any past> > > There has been a definite past, and we are making the past what it is > now. > > >The only past there is is now. Abraham Lincoln is now. Only now. :- )> > > Past and future exist over eall timef, this eeternal nowf > includes all of the future and all of the past. If you were to > estretchf now both sides of past and future, all would be > encompassed as a single NOW. But the past and future still exist and > are definite and real. Only in your mind, or rather, in the One Mind. :-) /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Hi again, > Tony Parsons is a ME, and just like you or me Tony Parsons sees the > world in the same way as you and me do, plus or minus the bias of > personal inherentness of that unique reflected self / ME. " The difference between you and me " , Tony says to a questioner, " is that you own something called 'you' " . There is no difference between Tony Parsons, a ME and you, a ME. The only thing that can 'own' is a ME so it is not that a ME ( you ) owns anything; it is that ME thinks of itself as such. > >And, of course, for a non-realized person like me, to > say that the world is no-thing happening is only a belief, a very > firm intellectual conclusion, but nonetheless only a belief> > > Tony Parsons is not a realized or enlightened person and you are not > an unrealized or unenlightened person. Any intellectual conclusion > asserts your existence as a separate ME. Tony says: " Being asleep and being awake [realized] are the same thing " Yes, no-one is realized, nor can they be. > If you are seeing this intellectually then it is a conception of what > you believe, by a ME that is participating and asserting itself as > that ME. >Yes, as long as the understanding is only intellectual, there is no realization.> So long as a ME is searching, looking, thinking, striving, trying, that ME is bound. >It is the 'meaningless' fundamental level of existence I am talking about when I say that there are no separate objects.> If you are talking about the absolute, then it is meaningless to speak about objects. But, 'Nirvana and Samsara are not two' 'Whilst it is true that All is in the ALL, it is *equally* true that the ALL is in All' How can I salute the ... >I believe that it is this interconnected dimension that is called no-mind, emptiness, the unmanifested e t c. > >The awareness of this fundamental level is what Eckhart Tolle calls object consciousness. You are talking about what he calls object consciousness which is ordinary thinking.> No mind, emptiness, un-manifest, is decorating an already decorated Christmas tree, or putting a head on top of another head. Any belief binds a ME. > There has been a Marilyn Monroe, and there continues to be people > born and people die, this is a part of reality and a part of what > makes the whole what it is. >You are talking about form. Form is 'born' and form 'dies'. We can think of form as a wave on an ocean. A wave is born and a wave dies> >So, if we call a certain wave Charlie, then this wave dies, and we ask: has there been a wave called Charlie? O yes, we answer, I remember Charlie so well. Similarly, every human body is nothing but a complex 'wave'> Yes, all phenomenon ( form ) is an appearance and disappearance. But all phenomenon only 'disappears' within time as a moment in time. >Do you understand, at least intellectually, what Nisargadatta meant when he said that you are not the body?> Yes. > >There has never been anyone who has > died. Form cannot be born> > > There has, people are born and people die. > Form itself changes and this includes what happens during the process > of dying. >Yes, people as form.> Form, existing over different levels of mental matter is what makes a person what they are, which includes all their capacities, thoughts and emotions etc. All this is an appearance and disappearance a temporary manifestation, we who exist over different levels of mind die and the process of dying is the changing of these levels of form. >But a form is in itself not a conscious being> No phenomenon, nothing that exists is aware, no phenomenon has any self nature, this is why it is incorrect to say that consciousness is all there is and that this consciousness is conscious. > >There has never been anyone making 100000 bows in front of a > chosen deity. :-)> > > There has been and there still is, and you could do this also if you > wanted to. <Oh no, a form cannot do anything.> We are not simply physical beings, we exist over many different layers of reality, and this allows us to interact with the world, think thoughts, feel emotions, express ourselves, act, do etc. We as MEs are the only DOers, the whole cannot do. Beings are not like plasticine that is moulded out of one form or stuff only, unable to act, do, feel, think etc and saying that all is the same form is not correct, as is indicating that a creature unable to act, do, participate, feel, etc. > >If Abraham Lincoln is now and _only_ now, then is > he dead or is he alive? > > Now is either a moment in time, in which case, every moment of > Abraham Lincolns life consisted of a series of in-time nows, or NOW > is eall timef, and this has nothing to do with time and includes > *everything* >I find it interesting to ponder over the idea that now is the only now there is> Now is spoken of in two ways, as a moment in time, and as the eternal now in which all is. >A remembered now is not a real now, but only a memory in this now, the only now there is> You are speaking of now in two different ways. As a moment in time, memory is awareness of events that have already occurred, this recollection of memory is itself a part of time and occurrs within time. Over all time NOW, all events are encompassed and real, all past and all future as one 'moment'. >You must admit that a memory of a now is not an evidence that the memory is about a real now that has happened in some 'real' past. A memory of a past now, is just that: a memory.> The past is the past because of what has really occurred. All the events that we refer to as the past could not have made the past what it is without passing through as moments in time, ( all phenomemon creates time ). Over all time ( NOW ), the past is *real* as is the future. > Maybe you are confusing now as a moment in time and NOW with > the 'eternal now' which has nothing to do with time. > You are speaking of now as a moment in time and NOW as the eternal in > the same statement. >What you call a now as a moment in time I call memory. Now as a moment in time is not a memory, it occurrs as a moment within time, we mark now in time, within times 'flow'. >A memory is not a real now> A memory is an awareness of occurrence that has happened which occurs *within* time. NOW, including all occurrences is 'all time'. >There is only now, the 'eternal now', and this now includes other imaginary 'nows' only in the form of memory.> No. The eternal NOW includes *everything*, every what, when, who, from the whole past and whole future, there is nothing that is not included. The imaginary nows that you mean when you speak of them being recollected as memories are real in the whole eternal now. > >A form is not a thing. A form cannot live> > > I beg your pardon? > > There is no form that is not living. > There is nothing dead in the entire universe. >Yes, that is true. Form is what makes objects seem separate. But form is never a really separate object, so what I mean is that a separate object cannot live independently from anything else.> Yes, we *participate*. >A dead human body and a living human body are the same One life.> They are one dead human being and one alive, the commonality they share exists on different levels, and part of this commonality is lost when one of these humans dies. >Think of the material universe as being a dream in the One Mind. If you see a dead body and a living body in a dream when sleeping, then what is the difference between the dead body and the living body. If both bodies are parts of your dream, then the bodies are only appearances in your mind> In the universe, or mind, there is nothing that is not in this mind, but an alive person and dead person are not the same. See above. >Similarly, what we call our real bodies are only appearances in Maya, the dream that the One Mind is having right now. > Every phenomenal object is an appearance and disappearance. >When you dream about a person who does not exist in the real world, then this person is exactly as real as for example Hillary Clinton, >It is only on the level of relative comparison Hillary Clinton is called a real person, and a person in a dream a mind-made person. > Dream objects and objects in the physical world are not the same. A dream is only one object produced by the psyche, it exists at one level only. An object in the physical and a person exists over many different layers. Dream objects and physical objects cannot be compared. >The truth I believe is that all persons are mind-made, but on different levels> Yes, there is *nothing* that is not mind The Indian mystics said 'Man is a thought in the mind of God' and whilst it isn't strictly speaking correct it is a very sagacious statement. > Things are happening, like this email, things also happen to things, > the whole is all this which includes all and every happening, who > what when where why >Yes, no-thing is happening. By no-thing I mean consciousness, and not nothing. Consciousness is a no-thing, it is not a thing, but it is not nothing> If you say consciousness is all there is then consciousness is phenomenal and is not conscious. The whole is not no-thing happening, it includes every happening, when what where who over all time. >When you drink a glass of water in you dream, a no-thing is happening. When you drink a glass of water in the 'real' world, the same no-thing is happening.> Again, dreams are not the same as the waking state and what happens in a dream is not the same as what happens in the waking state. A dream is one level only, physical reality exists over many levels. Dreams and the waking state are only compared to show that awareness immanent in all states. > >It means that all there is is consciousness, or call > it the Mind of God, the One, or whatever> > > Saying that all is consciousness is misleading because it is then > stated or thought that this consciousness which is all that exists, > is conscious, which is not the case. > Nothing that exists is aware. > We can say that the all is mental or everything is of a mental > nature, or there is nothing outside of mind. >Only consciousness is conscious, and consciousness is all there is.> No, consciousness cannot be all that IS and be conscious. > Objects are separate because they manifest differently over different > levels from a different root cause. The manifestation from the top to > the bottom is what causes the discreteness seen in manifestation. >There is no true discreteness in existence. Everything is interrelated into a whole web.> Objects are discrete things, all *things* are discrete things even thoughts and what makes them what they are is why they are discrete, nothing exists in separation. > Objects are separate because of the way they manifest and exist, > every object in the physical shares the same the same eprocess of > descentf, otherwise it could not be a physical object. >There are no physical objects. All is Maya, the One Mind dreaming.> There are physical objects, and all physical objects exist over the same levels of mind. Physical objects are also different, but share the commonality of having the same common spectrum of expression across varying degrees of mental matter. Mind is not one substance that everything is made of. Neither are objects or phenomenon Maya, Maya is a term that points to the nature of phenomenon. If you say all is Maya you should be calling all icecream 'cold'. > >Objects are > forms (or ripples) in the One Consciousness> > > Objects are manifestations of mind or mind manifest. > > >The One Consciousness is > all there is.> > > The eall is mindf, the nature of the universe is ementalf. > The Advaita people say eall there is is consciousness', but it > probably does more to confuse by saying this. >Would you prefer: all there is is mind? To me, mind and consciousness is the same 'thing'.> Mind and consciousness are not the same thing. There are different words in Sanskrit used to point this out but in the west we use them inter-changebly and it causes confusion. From the outset one must *decide* on what terms to use to avoid this confusion. If terms are not chosen consciousness comes to mean, mind, awareness, phenomenon, void etc. > All is not econsciousnessf as the same estuff', everything is of a > mental nature, and mind is expressed in many different forms. <'Everything is of a mental nature, and mind is expressed in many different forms' is the same as what I mean by 'everything is consciousness'. I think we have different ideas about what consciousness 'is'> Yes, one must define the terms that are used. You are using consciousness to mean phenomenon, all that is, and awareness. Everything is not 'consciousness' and conscious. >I see reality as one wholeness, a totality, and that totality we can call consciousness or mind or whatever> Mind does not equal consciousness. > Different substances, different type of mental matter is organized > into different functions of complexity for different purposes. > You might say everything is vibration, but this changing vibration > makes things different. It is all vibration as a quality but all > vibration is not the same as all vibration, if it were there would > not be any difference in anything. > > In the same way we could say that the whole and everything in it > shares the root nature of ementalityf, but this is expressed and > organized differently forming different things. > I think the clay or substance model points to everything being of one > enaturef but not that everything is one thing or substance. > This is part of the problems with words, in that it is not now that > we are discussing reality but that we are discussing our use of > definitions that comprise what we call reality. >There is only one 'substance' and that is consciousness> Consciousness is either non-substance / non-phenomenal and aware or substance and unaware, you cannot call it both. >And this is not a substance in the ordianry sense; consciousness has no size, color, shape or form. > If you are calling consciousness to mean the same as awareness, which is not a thing then you must use another term to describe phenomenon. >When you dream about a piece of silver and a piece of gold, then there is the _appearance_ of different substances, but all there is is pure consciousness> A dream is one object, dream objects are not the same as physical objects, a dream object cannot be compared to a physical object. >Similarly, in the 'real' world, gold and silver are the same Maya experienced from different 'angles'.> Gold and silver are not the same substance. Gold and silver exists over the same levels of mind the same as every physical thing or object including us humans, but Gold is not silver and these two things are different, no two things are made of one same consciousness or stuff. > > >So the human body is made of one 'stuff'> > > Nothing is made of the same or one *stuff* ( all stuff is > phenomenal ), because if it were there would only be one thing / > stuff, without difference. >I mean the noumenal 'stuff'> There is no such thing as noumenal 'stuff'. This is an example of the problem in using consciousness to mean different things. > Everything is made from modifications or expressions by one activity, > which is mental. > A human or any other physical object is made of different layers of > different stuff with the commonality of the same quality, i.e it > consists of layers of mind, the physical being the most dense > expression, these layers of mind are *different* from one another. > > We could say that what we call mind is one thing but that mind is > expressed over many differing levels of expression, objects and > things, including subtle things such as thoughts are expression in > this spectrum of ( mental ) matter. Every part of the manifestation > of a thing is spread across a spectrum of difference, and it is this > difference that we call mind, the all. >Yes, mind is one 'thing' experienceing itself in many forms> Mind is the forms / phenomenon. > >A rock or a > tree are made of the same 'stuff'. This one stuff is the One > Consciousness in which no things are truly separate. A thing is not > something other than the One Consciousness in relation to itself.> > > Rocks and trees are not made of the same stuff. eStufff in > whichever way we talk about it is phenomenal, and being phenomenal, > rocks and trees are made of different substances. > All objects exist over *different* levels of mind, this is what makes > them separate. > Rocks and trees share the similarity of existing over the same layers > of mind, but they are different, are organized differently > strructurally, perform different functions, have different > capabilities etc. >If all there is is mind then this mind is the one 'stuff'.> Mind is not all the same one 'stuff', because all phenomenon are different and made from different stuff. Phenomenal stuff is not the same. Mind exists over different levels of different 'stuff' *all of which is mental*. Mind is not one substance all phenomenally the same. > > > > 'You' are the *whole* ( all there is ) and you are experiencing > a > > > > human body? > > > > > > The whole is experiencing all human bodies, > > > > > > How can the *whole* experience anything? > > The whole IS. > > >You *are* the whole experienceing itself> > > No, I am not the whole experiencing itself. > How can the whole, which is all there IS experience itself? >All-there-is is experienceing itself in time, right now> The whole includes all time, the whole cannot experience itself within time, the whole IS. >I see everything as a single infinite event happening now. This single event is the whole, it includes you and everything else> The whole is all that IS, yes. There is nothing outside of this. >This single event is all-there-is. This event started now and will go on forever.> The universe did not start now, there was not a time when it was not, because time is bound to phenomenon. Time is happening now. >There has never been any real past. What we call the past is a memory in this single event that started *now*. :-)> There is and has been a real past, and over all time it is definite and real as is the future. >I think this is an interesting view of how reality works. Reality began now> The now you are talking of is a moment in time and the concept you are applying to it is the NOW of all time. >Who has lived in the past? No one! The past _also_ began now. > The lives of people is what makes the past what is is, ( amongst everything else ). >This is what I mean by that there never has been any persons. Abraham Lincoln, a person? No, Abraham Lincoln is only a memory. How about me, has there never been any me? What about my childhood, what about my body being a baby? No, my body began *now*. The entire universe began *now*.> The entire universe exists over all time which includes all the past and all the future, this includes as a complete continuum you as a baby, and all your life with no gaps whatsoever up to your point as a being in time now. > >You cannot know yourself, you can only be yourself. > > > No, no ME can know. >A ME can only know _about_ something else that is not the ME. Take away all the things a ME know _about_ and what is left?> When I say a ME cannot know, A ME cannot KNOW. > >Knowledge is only possible when we have a subject - object > relationship. In oneness > there is only being.> > > Subject and object are never two, except when subject is > conceptualized as object or phenomenon is conceptualized as the > originator of subject. >When I look at a tree, that I am the subject and the tree the object.> Who, what is the subject? >Of course, I and the tree are fundamentally one, but on the level of phenomenality there is a subject-object relationship.> Is there an I and the tree? Subject and object do not exist ( are never 2 ) except when subject is conceptualized as object. > >Oneness cannot know oneness as an object without > itself becoming and object. Oneness can only *be* oneness.> > > Oneness, Wholeness cannot experience itself or become its object > because it is everything. Wholeness is all there IS. >What you call the 'eternal now' is the only now and when we realize this we step out of the dream of thought> Now is also described as a moment within time, eternal NOW has nothing to do with time. >The whole experince itself in time, and time began now.> Time is happening now. >Infinity began now. We live in infinity,and infinity has no end, but it has a beginning: now. You are the whole experiencing itself now.> No, I am not the whole experiencing itself. The whole cannot experience itself, the whole is all there IS. > > You are a human body and the whole? > > >Yes sir!> > > How can you be a human body and be the whole ( all that is )? This is the no-thing-ness happening. This is 'emptiness' happening, but it is not emptiness in the form of nothing, it is the no thing, it is not a thing, but it is not nothing: it is the one consciousness happening. A human body is a ripple, wave form in consciousness, or call it the one mind. You look at a body and see it as an object, but the body is not an object. The body is only an object in the form of appearance.> Emptiness doesn't happen. > The whole has no other relations, it IS, it canft act on itself and > doesn't make itself what it is. >The human body and the whole are not two.> There is no whole and a human body. > >So, what we then have is the whole and only the whole. There is > nothing other than the whole.> > > Yes, the whole is all there IS. > The whole then cannot act *on* itself, reflect itself or will itself > because the whole is all, there is nothing else. >The whole is playing a game of hide-and-seek with itself.> The whole IS. The whole is not doing, acting on itself or willing, or playing hide and seek. > Everything is not the whole, one thing is not the whole, and the > addition of everything is not the whole. 'Every thing' is appearance. 'Everything' is the whole. Everything does not equal the whole, the sum of everything is not the whole. The whole is not the parts together. > > Everybody is not the whole experiencing itself. > > >The whole is the only 'thing' there is.> > > The whole is all there is and you and me are not all there is. >You and me are the whole.> No, you and me are not the whole. > > Can the whole ( all that is ) experience itself? > > >We are doing it right now! :-)> > > No we aren't. > The whole is everything including all MEs and their experiences. > How can the whole, all that IS experience itself if it is all there > IS? >The whole has many facets and one facet, one viewpoint is you.> No, ME is a viewpoint. >The whole began experience itself now> The whole is not and did not begin to experience itself. It is all there is, including all experiences. As the whole which is all there is it cannot objectify itself to experience itself, it simply IS. >but it will continue to experience itself forever, because what is infinite has no end, so we can say that the whole is experiencing itself fully now> Infinity is 'time going on forever' and time going on forever is phenomenon changing. >but this experienceing of itself will never end. Infinity is experiencing itself in a single instant: now. But this single instant has no end.> Yes, everything is fully encompassed over 'all time'. > > The ALL is 'mental' yes and there is nothing outside of 'mind'. > > 'Over all time', the eternal now, everything is fully encompassed. > > >We don't need to say the eternal now, just now will be enough.> > > Yes, we do, the now referred to above is not a moment in time. > We say eternal now or NOW in capitals to distinguish from now as a > moment in time. > You have used both these terms in the same sentence previously > without making a clear distinction. >We can only distinguish different nows in the form of memory. I am not talking about memory, because memory is a part of the _only_ actual now there is.> We mark now as a moment in time within time, and the eternal now we speak of as happening or existing with everything over all time. What we call the event we see in memory only exists in the eternal NOW. > > > The One Mind is a happening/experiencing, not a > > > doing. > > > > > > Yes, Wholeness cannot think act, will, make a decision or DO. > > >That's right, because there never has been, is, or ever will be a > truly separate entity able to act in any way or form> > > No, because wholeness is all there is, and is not capable of willing > itself or making itself what it is. > There are individual entities, and all of these entities make the > whole what it is, the whole cannot act on itself. > Beings as separate beings can and do act, it is the whole that cannot > act and has no will. >No one has any will other than the experience of will and it is the whole happening now which makes reality what it is.> No, the whole does not make itself what it is, does not act on itself and cannot will itself. > > " There is no separate intelligence weaving a destiny and no choice > functioning at any level> > > I don't know Tony Parsons means eby separate intelligencef, but the > capacity for intelligence and the mental faculty for providing it > exists IN the individual, even using the term precisely, the > individuals mind is a part of each ME, and it is separate and unique > to each ME. What makes us individuals is this limitation of mind > thought and intellect which exists discretely. >Nothing in reality is truly discrete.> Nothing exists in separation, objects are discrete. > >Nothing is happening but this, as it is> > > Nothing is happening but this, as it is = everything is happening as > it is. > > >invites the apparent seeker to rediscover that which is> > > If a seeker is seeking a ME is bound. The seeker can never know. >Not know maybe, but realize perhaps that there never was any seeker, only an apparen seeker as Tony says.> The seeker ( ME ) cannot realize. > . . . the > abiding, uncaused, unchanging, impersonal silence from which > unconditional love overflows and celebrates. It is the wonderful > mystery. " -- Tony Parsons > > The wonderful mystery that Tony Parsons is speaking about, is an > interpretation that he has given to reality as a ME. >I think he points to some deeper realization than an intellectual interpretation.> Anything versed as thought is Tony Parsons, a MEs interpretation. > > This single event is absolute; it cannot do anything, > > > but the unfolding of this event is what we are experiencing now - > > all > > > of it. > > > > > > The whole is not a single event. > > The whole, all that IS, can be given one description; it IS. > > >Yes, but on an intellectual level, I think that my theory about > everything being one atomic infinite event happening now is > interesting. It is not even my idea. I think Wayne Liquorman > described reality in a similar way, and that is where I got the idea > from.> > > It can only be interesting to a ME that is bound, if it is > interesting, amazing or even divine, that ME is bound. >Bound or not bound, God is the only experiencer. :-)> Who is God? Can he be bound? > > Can all that IS, *experience* itself? > > >Yes, in time! The whole is experiencing itself now, but this > experience is not finished yet, it will never end!> > > The whole includes time, how can the whole experience itself in time? Time began now> Time didn't begin now, time is *happening* now. Whenever phenomenon is there, time is present, there was no time when it was not. >Reality is a single infinite event that began now> Over all time as eternal NOW, not as a moment in time now. These are different. >So time is just the effect of this single event being infinite, which means that this event will go on forever, even though it is just one single event. This creates the appearence of motion which we interpret as time.> Phenomenon is time, all of it, and the behaviour of phenomenon counts time and times arrows. > >We are the whole experiencing itself> > > No, we are not the whole experiencing itself. >It is always difficult to talk about the whole and use words like 'is'. When something 'is', then it 'is' within a relational framework. So maybe to say that we 'are' the whole becomes misleading.> The statements above are fairly easy to understand, they are just not correct, *WE* are not the whole. > > >We are God as the creator and creation in action.> > > God is different things to different people. >Yes, I only use the word God to get a less sterile concept of the whole, totality e t c. When describing what is like I do, I find that what I describe sounds like shallow mathematical concepts, and they *are* that :-), but I sometimes want to a more rich description. for example, instead of predetermined we can say the Will of God, or fate as the flow of life.> And, each of these has its own connotations and bias. God probably more than any other word used in religion and philosophy means so many different things to every person. Sometimes we automatically use it because it represents to us the highest, the whole, all that is, or what we personally conceive to be the infinite and unbound etc. Words limit reality into discrete chunks of symbolic meaning ( phenomenon ). > >When did this experience start? The answer is that it started: now! > > > Not estarted. > There was not a etimef when it was not. >Of course not. Because there never was any other time than now> NOW exists over all time. >But there is a start in the form of an apparent Big Bang and perhaps other starts before that. All of that is now.> Not now as a moment in time. > >But doing in > the form of experience is of course a part of what is happening. But > doing, such as actual making the universe alter its course by some > individual will is sheer illusion.> > > The altering of the course of the universe is a person willing, these > are not two. >Yes, that is correct. A person willing and the universe unfolding are the same happening. But I see it as the universe unfolding is what is happening and the person willing just a result of that> The whole cannot act on itself. >The universe unfolding is a wholeness, an infinitely complex interrelated net of 'particles' and 'waves' in motion. The thoughts you are thinking are related to every grain of sand on Earth and to every hydrogen atom in every star in the universe. Everything affects everything else. There are no independent events.> Yes, everything is inter-related. If you removed a blade of grass the whole would not be the whole, if you removed or could remove a blade of grass the whole would not BE. > > > The whole or all that is is not making itself what it is, or > > unfolding itself by acting upon itself. > > >Not by acting, the whole unfolding now, *is*.> > > The only thing we can say about the whole is it IS. > The whole is not acting on itself or unfolding by itfs own action on > itself. >The unfolding of this complex web we call life happens. It happens like this, because it cannot be otherwise.> 'Life unfolding' includes participation of every-single being in the universe, these are not two different things. > A ME is comprised of many levels of mental matter and being form does > not make it nothing. > If by nothing in itself you mean no form has an independent existence > yes, but form is how ideas are expressed, how mind is expressed. > Everything, every form serves a purpose as the form it is. >Yes, form is purpose. Form is experience and meaning. A wave on the ocean is a form, the wave is not an object in itself, yet it is an object in an interrelated and relative way. Every form is interrelated and relative.> Yes. > >No-thing-ness is not nothingness. So when we say no-thing is > happening, we don't mean nothing is happening.> > > What then does eno-thing happeningf mean? >When Tony Parsons said this he mentioned that people would try to figure out what this meant or dismiss it totally, because the [human] mind does not like this at all, he said. >I see intellectually what he meant, but this is perhaps not what he really meant at all. This is what I think he meant: >By no-thing he means noumenal existence. This is what the dictionary says about 'noumenal': " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. Also called thing-in-itself. " > >By independent of the mind, Kant must have meant the phenomenal mind, or what Eckart Tolle calls 'object consciousness'.> Yes, the phenomenal mind, phenomenon. Kant called this pure apperception; 'The synthetic transcendental unity of pure apperception' By which he meant the subjective moment of consciousness. >Noumenal existence is the one consciousness, or the One Mind, and this Mind has no size, color or form, it is not a phenomenal 'thing', it is not a thing, it is a no-thing> You are using the word consciousness to mean both phenomenon and awareness. If all there is is consciousness then this is not noumenal, that is it exists as phenomenon, and if all there is is this consciousness as described then this phenomenal existence is not conscious. >Noumenal existence is all there is, all that has real existence. Form, such as matter, thoughts e t c, has no real existence.> Yes, all phenomenon is illusionary and only relatively real. >So, no-thing happening is noumenal existence expressed in phenomenal form. > Noumenon doesn't become. >Form happening has no real existence at all, it is all Maya> Form does have existence, and there is happening, this is the relative world, samsara etc in which time occurrs and phenomenon occurrs. >This means that objects like the human body or a coin or a tree has no real existence. The human body is not happening> No phenomenon has a real of-itself existence, yes. But things happen, things happen to phenomenon, and things are happening is real. The total happening of phenomenon is what creates time, the universe is not no-thing happening, the whole includes all happenings. >The human body is not happening> The human body is a happening and things happen to all phenomenon and not just human bodies. >It is noumenal existence happening giving rise to the _experience_ of form, such as a human body, a thought or a tree> 'Noumenal existence' does not happen. >Or we could call noumenal existence the One Mind experiencing itself. > The whole cannot experience itself as the whole. >The only 'thing' that can have independent existence, meaning absolute existence, meaning real existence, is no-thing-ness> Nothing phenomenal yes. >So, what in Buddhism is called emptiness is the same as no-thing- ness, and this is not nothingness, instead it is the infinite potential that simply _is_ without being a thing in itself> No, it's not that either > > How can the whole experience itself as a body? > > >In time> > > The whole is all there is including time. > How can the whole experience itself within time? >Thw whole experiences itself now> Now as the eternal now is all time, the whole IS everything over all time, it cannot experience *itself* as what it is. >But this experience will never end even though it is just one single 'no thing' event. This single event goes on and on, and that makes the appearance of time. Phenomenon, the behaviour of phenomenon is time, but the whole is not acting on itself to cause itself to unfold. > > The whole is all that is, cannot experience itself as anything. > > >If the whole is all that is, then there is nothing else than the > whole being able to experience anything.> > > The whole being all that IS, cannot experience itself as anything. > What can the whole experience itself as if the whole is all there is? >The now is the whole experiencing only a part of itself> Everything is included over all time, the eternal now where everything IS, but the whole doesn't experience itself as it is, it does not reflect itself. >The whole_is_ experiencing itself in its totality, but the whole has not yet experienced itself fully because it is infinite. :-) The whole is the totality including any experiences, it IS, it is not the experience of itself. > > The whole cannot say 'I am the whole' or 'I am the whole > experiencing > > itself as a human body', it is a ME that says the above. > > >No, it is the whole experiencing itself as a ME> > > The whole cannot be the whole and be a ME. >If we think of the whole as one person. Then this person can experience himself or herself as other persons. How? When a person is having a dream then there may be many other persons in the dream. How can there be many persons in one mind?!!! Similarly, the One Mind must probably have an infinite capacity for 'dreaming', creating world and universes endlessly without limit: the One and the Many.> The whole is what is is because of the interactions of reflected individuals. A ME is not the whole and a ME claiming I am the whole is like a dream person in your example claiming they are the person having the dream. > >in time experiencing > the 'doing' of saying " I am the whole " > > > The whole cannot say it is the whole, only a ME can. >But the ME is a dream character in the One Mind.> Every phenomenon is a mental phenomenon in 'the one mind'. There is no-thing that is not. And a ME is the only thing that can claim 'I am the whole'. > >but this is in fact no real > doing created by the ME. The ME is an *experience* the whole is > having. An experience cannot itself *do* anything. > > The whole cannot experience itself through a ME, the whole is all > that is including all experiences of a ME, everything. >the One Mind can experience itself in many facets, all of them seemingly separate.> Experience happens through reflections *on* the whole, it reflects on itself. The whole does not reflect itself. > >You cannot say: " The object is what makes it an object " > > > I said what makes an object what it is is what makes an object a > separate thing. > Which means that how objects manifest is what makes them separate and > what allows us to define what separate means. Yes, when we talk about something 'is', then we are talking about relative co-existent objects. But what I am trying to point to is that the only 'thing' that _is_ is noumenal existence and that when we say that an object _is_ we are talking about relative existence in phenomenality.>without > having a framework, a context in which this object exists, and even > this framework is only a part of totality in the form of form. The > framework has no independent existence, and so how can an object > dependent on such framework be said to be a separate thing? > > No object arises of itself or independently, but objects because of > what they are are separate *things*. The non-seperation is not a > thing. >True, things can only be defined in relative co-dependent existence, which is the world of form, or phenomenality. I am trying to point to noumenal, or absolute reality.> Ok. > > Brushing your teeth is not an illusion. > > >There has never been anyone brushing any teeth> > > There has and continues to be people brushing their teeth, it is > something that you also would do yourself. >Yes, but the tooth brush is just a phenomenon, and so is my body. Yes, this is what allows brushing teeth to happen. >They are not things-in-themselves.> No object has an of-itself existence. The only thing of-itself is the whole. > > Then this consciousness is not conscious. > > >It is conscious now. It is you.> > > No, eyouf is conscious, and if consciousness is all there is then > this consciousness is also not conscious >Would you prefer to call the One Consciousness the One Mind?> If you call it mind or consciousness, it doesn't matter, either way if you are referring to everything that exists as this mind or consciousness then this is not conscious or aware. >It is the same 'thing' or rather no-thing ('no thing'). Only a 'no thing' can have absolute existence.> If you say consciousness is all there IS as in phenomenon then it is not conscious. You are using the term consciousness to represent both phenomenon and noumenon. > > >This consciousness experiences > > > itself as form due to self-relation. > > >Consciousness related to itself > > > in all possible forms is the single state that is unfolding now. > > > > Consciousness as phenomenon touches consciousness as phenomenon. > > This consciousness is not conscious. > > >If consciousness is all there is, then what can be conscious but > consciousness itself?> > > Saying consciousness is all there IS and that all that is is > conscious or aware is giving phenomenon the power to be aware. > Nothing that exists is aware. >It depends on what we mean by " exists " . I see consciousness as the only existence that is absolute. Consciousness is both that which is aware and the inherent phenomenal world it is being aware of.> No, if consciousness is phenomenon then it is not conscious. You cannot call the same thing that is phenomenon and also call it awareness or conscious. > > > By who? By consciousness, of course. What else is there? ;-) > > > > > > If consciousness is all there IS, it is not consciousness that is > > conscious. > > >There can only be one 'stuff', as I have explained, and that one > stuff is the One Consciousness, or what you want to call it.> > > There is not only one stuff / substance, substance is phenomenal and > if all was the same one stuff phenomenally nothing would be > different, different objects would not exist; there is one quality, > mental. <I mean 'stuff' as something being a thing-in-itself, not relative stuff.> No 'stuff' is a thing in-itself. > > No, if consciousness is all there IS, consciousness is *not* > > conscious. > > > > Consciousness is not all that IS, *and* conscious. > > > > Ramesh Balsekar and others from the Advaita Vedanta tradition say > > this statement and people quote it but then also say that this > > consciousness is aware or conscious, this is not correct. > > >There can only be one 'stuff' in existence> > > Not the same stuff or the same phenomenonally. > Everything is of the same nature, mental. >Yes, mental 'stuff'.> Mental stuff is mind, mind is not aware. You must now use a different term to describe what is aware or conscious. > >There has never been any person alive or dead!> > > There has and there will continue to be people born and die, and not > only people. > You and I will both will one day die, other people will grieve this > loss and others will be born, you if you have not already can choose > to participate in creating another human life yourself also. >The world is Maya. There is no one in the world! :-) We are all One> No, we are not all one. " Discover all that you are not--body, feelings, thoughts, time, space, this or that--nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realize that you are the limitless being. " -- Nisargadatta Maharaj >If you are not a body, no one else is a body either> You and me are bodies and minds. >I think Maharaj also said: " this world is unreal to the core " . What he then meant was probably that this world is Maya, that as Maya it is of course real, but the material world is just like a virtual reality. There are no separate persons> There are separate persons, Nisargardatta was himself a separate ME. >All is One Mind.> Mind exists before counting, all is mental. > >Abraham Lincoln is not a 'being', he is a form > appearing now, and only now> > > As a moment in time; > Abraham Lincoln is not appearing now. > Abraham Lincoln is not alive now. > > As the eternal now, in which all is; > > Abraham Lincoln and everything else that is included, there is > nothing outside of ethisf > Abraham is not a form appearing now >Abraham is _only_ a form appearing now> No, not as a moment in time. >Your body is also only a form appearing now. There has never been a past you>> There has been a definite and continuous past you and me. >You take a memory and think of it as a reality that has happened in the past.> Memory is a recollection of events that have happened, these event also exist as *real* events 'still' over all time NOW. >But all memory happens now, and only now> Memory happens as a recollection of an event occurred, and this memory itself arises within time ( now as a moment in time ). The events that memory refers to in time happen as actual real events NOW over all time. >You have never been a baby other than as a memory or thought-form appearing now> We have all been babies and our life span as MEs is continous. The now that you are speaking of is a moment in time and you are applying the concept of all time to it. >Can you prove that I am wrong? ;-) > You can prove this to yourself, ask your mum for a baby photo to see baby Anders >You were born *now*> The now you are referring to is within time, and we were not born now. We were born exactly the number of years and days into the past we were born. The now that you are speaking of in which our whole life exists over a continuum is the eternal now. >Sure, your memories about the past are real, but these memories are now, and only now. > This is now as a moment in time, we were not born now in this moment in time. We exist over all time, not as a memory now, and not only us, everything that exists, all of it, exists over all time. Our life is a continous sequence from when we are born to when we die. And this sequence itself is something which has been selected out from a total wholeness in which all in included past and future as only ONE moment. <The entire past is created now.> No, the now you are speaking of is a moment in time. The entire past and future exists over all time, the eternal NOW. > > >There never has been any past> > > There has been a definite past, and we are making the past what it is > now. > > >The only past there is is now. Abraham Lincoln is now. Only now. :- )> > > Past and future exist over eall timef, this eeternal nowf > includes all of the future and all of the past. If you were to > estretchf now both sides of past and future, all would be > encompassed as a single NOW. But the past and future still exist and > are definite and real. >Only in your mind, or rather, in the One Mind. :-)> Not in anyone, anybodys, one, the, or a mind. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2004 Report Share Posted August 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi again, > <snip> > > >But a form is in itself not a conscious being> > > > No phenomenon, nothing that exists is aware, no phenomenon has any > self nature, this is why it is incorrect to say that consciousness > is all there is and that this consciousness is conscious. I use the word form to mean the same thing as phenomenon. Consciousness is all there is, and this consciousness is by self- reflection experiencing form. Consciousness is what is, and form/phenomenon is what appear in what is as a projection or Maya. Think of consciousness as an ocean and phenomenon/form as waves on that ocean. All there is is the ocean. All there is is consciousness. > > > >You must admit that a memory of a > now is not an evidence that the memory is about a real now that has > happened in some 'real' past. A memory of a past now, is just that: a > memory.> > > > The past is the past because of what has really occurred. > > All the events that we refer to as the past could not have made the > past what it is without passing through > as moments in time, ( all phenomemon creates time ). > > Over all time ( NOW ), the past is *real* as is the future. But the trick is that all of the past is created *now*. This is what for example Julian Barbour describes in his scientific explanation that there is no time. It is true that evolution must go through all the steps from the Big Bang and all the way to present day. We think of this history record as taking 15 billion years. But imagine that we use time compression to create a memory of this history record. With time compression we can make what takes a life time to form, for example a human beings memory, and create it in one second. The memory and the _feeling_ of time in that memory will still feel like a whole lifetime, but in reality it has been created in one seconds instead of seventy years. The memory of time passing does not contain time itself. In the same way, we can use infinite time compression so that what has taken 15 billion years will be compressed into zero seconds, compressed into this single now! The past has occurred, yes, but it occurres now, and only now. There is no real past. If we in the future could make a digital copy of a human memory and put it into a self-aware robot or AI-entity, then that artificial life form would believe it had experienced the same thing as the human being. It would believe that it had lived for several years as that person, but in reality it would only have 'lived'/existed for perhaps a couple of days. Julian Barbour describes existence as a timeless world he calls Platona containing an infinite number of timeless 'nows'. A single now can contain the entire memory/history track from the Big Bang to the present day. But each now is timeless. Each now contains a static history track that forms the appearance of time passing. Each now is not created, it already is. <snip> > > >A dead human body and a living human body are the same One life.> > > They are one dead human being and one alive, the commonality they > share exists on different levels, and part of this > commonality is lost when one of these humans dies. A dead human body and a living human body are contained in timeless 'nows'. Everything is already dead. Every phenomenal thing is already dead. Every form is already dead. But is is better to say that each object is timeless, instead of using the word 'dead' which has a negative tint to it. All matter is already timeless. A superstring in a dead body and a superstring in a living body are just forms, they have no existence as things-in-themselves. Another model would be to say that everything in the world is digital information and the awareness of this digital information. So existence can in this way be seen as a gigantic virtual reality simulation where everything is just digital information. A dead human body and a living human body are both just timeless digital information observed by the One Awareness in a timeless now. If existence is timeless, as I believe it is, then death is a myth. No one can die. There is only One Life, One Mind. The physical universe is a projection without any substance. It is all Maya. A dead human body and a 'living' human body are just projections made of timeless information. A human body then is truly not a living thing, a human body is a timeless form. We can look at a human body in 3D and then it appear to move. And we can also look at a human body in 4D (including the time dimension) and then the human body does not move but instead it is looked on for all times in the same moment, i.e. the human body as a one year old baby and a 90 years old lady is observed timelessly at the same time, as the same body. Take away time and there is no birth nor death. And Julian Barbour has described in a scientific way that there is no time. See: http://www.platonia.com/ /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2004 Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 Hello again, > >But a form is in itself not a conscious being> > > > No phenomenon, nothing that exists is aware, no phenomenon has any > self nature, this is why it is incorrect to say that consciousness > is all there is and that this consciousness is conscious. >I use the word form to mean the same thing as phenomenon.> Yes, form or phenomenon; no matter to what degree of subtlety you take each definition. No form / phenenomenon is aware. >Consciousness is all there is, and this consciousness is by self- reflection experiencing form.> If you call consciousness all that IS, phenomenon, than you cannot also give this term a quality of awareness. This is the problem in using consciousness to mean different things or using the term 'consciousness' to mean more than one definition. Statements like 'All there is is consciousness' are misunderstood and other conclusions are drawn from this statement as beleifs. 'All there is is consciousness' is not a statement that need be understood ( any beleif or understanding is a phenomenon to a ME ) >Consciousness is what is, and form/phenomenon is what appear in what is as a projection or Maya.> There is no projection in or of anything, this is a ME conceiving of a belief at something that happens or something that consciousness 'does' or is 'capable of doing'. >Think of consciousness as an ocean and phenomenon/form as waves on that ocean> You cannot *think* of consciousness as anything. When we use it as a definition or say consciousness is all there IS, it is misleading also. >All there is is the ocean. All there is is consciousness.> If all there IS is 'consciousness', then this 'consciousness' is not conscious. > >You must admit that a memory of a > now is not an evidence that the memory is about a real now that has > happened in some 'real' past. A memory of a past now, is just that: a > memory.> > > > The past is the past because of what has really occurred. > > All the events that we refer to as the past could not have made the > past what it is without passing through > as moments in time, ( all phenomemon creates time ). > > Over all time ( NOW ), the past is *real* as is the future. >But the trick is that all of the past is created *now*.> The past is created by phenomenon changing now ( as a moment in time ), not created NOW over all time. The past ( and future ) 'already is' over ALL time ( The eternal NOW ) >This is what for example Julian Barbour describes in his scientific explanation that there is no time. > There is time, it is just not independent of phenomenon. >It is true that evolution must go through all the steps from the Big Bang and all the way to present day.> Yes. Evolution ( and all change ) is time. >We think of this history record as taking 15 billion years> The change that we call evolution ( all changes ) that take place are time, we could say that it took exactly 15 million years for evolution to happen, or we can say that this evolution is 15 million years of time and times arrows. The change of evolution happening is 15 million years 'worth of time'. >But imagine that we use time compression to create a memory of this history record.> >With time compression we can make what takes a life time to form, for example a human beings memory, and create it in one second.> What is time compression? >The memory and the _feeling_ of time in that memory will still feel like a whole lifetime, but in reality it has been created in one seconds instead of seventy years.> Memories cannot contain time, time is dependent upon phenomenon and memories themselves are phenomenon changing. >The memory of time passing does not contain time itself> No experience, memory or phenomenon contains time. Memories happening are also time, and occurr within time, memories are changing phenomenon. >In the same way, we can use infinite time compression so that what has taken 15 billion years will be compressed into zero seconds, compressed into this single now!> How can we use infinite time compression? This single now you are speaking of is a moment in time, but the whole span of time that you are speaking of does not occurr as a moment in time now or stop up and until now as a moment in time year 2004 as we define it, or at this particular state of evolution. *Everything* which includes what we call the past and future is over *all* time, and all time NOW, big letters, is not a moment in time. >The past has occurred, yes, but it occurres now, and only now> The past does not occur in now, a moment in time, as a moment in time the past is only a memory. The past ( and what we call the future ) exists in one NOW over *all* time, it is only in the eternal now that the past truly exists. >There is no real past.> There is a *real* past and future. This / 'these both' occurr over All time, not now as a moment within time. As now a moment within time the past only exists as our memory of it, and the future as an imagining. >If we in the future could make a digital copy of a human memory and put it into a self-aware robot or AI-entity, then that artificial life form would believe it had experienced the same thing as the human being> Human memory doesn't create time. The only way to recreate time and times arrows is to recreate changing phenomenon. But the whole cannot be changed, it IS. Time going backwards is 'only' time arrows changing. >It would believe that it had lived for several years as that person, but in reality it would only have 'lived'/existed for perhaps a couple of days.> Memories do not contain times passing. Memories themselves occurr within time and as changing phenomenon create time. >Julian Barbour describes existence as a timeless world he calls Platona containing an infinite number of timeless 'nows'> The only 'timeless' now is the 'eternal now' which encompasses *ALL*. >A single now can contain the entire memory/history track from the Big Bang to the present day. But each now is timeless.> Now as a moment in time, is not timeless. NOW as 'all time' has nothing to do with time. >Each now contains a static history track that forms the appearance of time passing> Times appearance of passing is phenomenon changing. Time is dependent on phenomenal change and not independent of it. Time cannot pass without changing phenomenon. >Each now is not created, it already is.> Now as a moment in time is not already created, it is being enacted or made *now*, and this enacting or changing is what allows us to mark time as in time nows. Now as eternal now has nothing to do with time. > >A dead human body and a living human body are the same One life.> > > They are one dead human being and one alive, the commonality they > share exists on different levels, and part of this > commonality is lost when one of these humans dies. >A dead human body and a living human body are contained in timeless 'nows'> A dead human and an alive human as phenomenon along with everything else are time and within time. A dead human and alive human both exist in now as a moment in time, which is not two nows. Every phenomenon is not its own now, and does not have it's own now, but phenomenon changing that define now as a moment in time, are different nows. The dead human and alive human only 'disappear' in this now as a moment in time, and not as NOW, all time. >Everything is already dead. Every phenomenal thing is already dead. Every form is already dead.> No, everything is not already dead, and you are me and not already dead. You and me and all phenomenon acting are within time, as are the *phenomenon* of birth and death. >But is is better to say that each object is timeless, instead of using the word 'dead' which has a negative tint to it.> Objects are not timeless they are time, every object and all phenomenon is time. Objects are their own duration not times. Time is dependent upon phenomenon. >All matter is already timeless> All matter ( no matter how subtle or gross ) is time. There is no time without matter / form / phenomenon. >A superstring in a dead body and a superstring in a living body are just forms, they have no existence as things-in-themselves.> Is a superstring within time or outside of it? >Another model would be to say that everything in the world is digital information and the awareness of this digital information.> >So existence can in this way be seen as a gigantic virtual reality simulation where everything is just digital information.> What definition of 'digital' are you using to describe the world as such? >A dead human body and a living human body are both just timeless digital information observed by the One Awareness in a timeless now.> The only timeless now, is the now of all time. Observing change as we observe change with two different bodies is not now all time, it is a ME within time. >If existence is timeless, as I believe it is, then death is a myth. No one can die> We do die, what makes us a ME changes, and this is our physical death. Death is a process of phenomenal change, all phenomenal change is time. Time does not *cause* this change, time does not cause our death. >There is only One Life, One Mind.> There is not 'one life' there are many lives, everything is alive. There is not one mind, or my mind or a mind, there is mind. >The physical universe is a projection without any substance. It is all Maya. A dead human body and a 'living' human body are just projections made of timeless information.> No, a dead human and an alive human being are different and they exist over different levels of reality what we call death is a process of changing form. There is no projection, this is a MEs conception. >A human body then is truly not a living thing, a human body is a timeless form.> A human being is a living thing, there is nothing in the universe that is not living. Forms are not timeless, forms / phenomenon and their change is time. >We can look at a human body in 3D and then it appear to move. And we can also look at a human body in 4D (including the time dimension)> When we look at a human being now we are looking at it with the 4th dimension of time. Our world consists of 3 dimensions of space plus the 4th dimension of time, ( if that is how you define the 4th dimension ). >and then the human body does not move but instead it is looked on for all times in the same moment> Time the 4th dimension is included in our world as we see it now. If we propose a 4th dimensional viewpoint, or rather a viewpoint outside of time ( which is not possible for a ME within time ) all time is included as a single now. But we, as MEs are bound to time, within time, we can never have a timeless viewpoint. >i.e. the human body as a one year old baby and a 90 years old lady is observed timelessly at the same time, as the same body.> A human growing old does not grow old because of time, time is a human growing old. Time does not *cause* anything; time does not make us 'grow old', or 'cars to rust', or 'people to die'; Us growing old ( and every phenomenal change ) is time and *times arrows*. >Take away time and there is no birth nor death> You cannot take away time from birth and death; these process and changes are time and times arrows. Time is not independent of phenomenon, including the phenomenon of birth and death. >And Julian Barbour has described in a scientific way that there is no time> There is time, it is just not independent of phenomenon. So long as there is phenomenon there is time. We are also within time, and we can *never* be outside of it. *So long as there is a ME participating a ME is ( always ) within time.* That is an explaination, but a ME can never be outside of time because a ME is *always* partipating. See: http://www.platonia.com/ The only information I could find at this site was this page http://www.platonia.com/ideas.html. The rest of the site is dedicated to information about his books other material. That is not to say the book might not be interesting or that he does not have some interesting things to say, but you would have to buy the book as he does not present any support for his opinions on the website. Have you read his book? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2004 Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hello again, > .... > > What is time compression? > > How can we use infinite time compression? > > This single now you are speaking of is a moment in time, but the > whole span of time that you are speaking of does not occurr as a > moment in time now or stop up and until now as a moment in time year > 2004 as we define it, or at this particular state of evolution. > > *Everything* which includes what we call the past and future is over > *all* time, and all time NOW, big letters, is not a moment in time. The future happens now, yes, but not yet. The past has already happened. Infinite time compression is the idea that this moment is the only moment there is. Think about it. The year 2003 is now and only now. There has never been any year 2003 in the form of a past, but rather, the year 2003 happens now. The entire past is compressed into a zero second event which is now. This is infinite time compression. The now is infinite time compression. There is only now. What other time than the now do we have? A memory of 2003, is that time? A memory of time, is that time? Yes, a memory of 2003 is time, the only time there is. The idea of the year 2005 is an extrapolation from memory, and that is also time. But all time is now. .... > See: http://www.platonia.com/ > > > The only information I could find at this site was this page > http://www.platonia.com/ideas.html. > > The rest of the site is dedicated to information about his books > other material. > > That is not to say the book might not be interesting or that he does > not have some interesting things to say, but you would have to buy > the book as he does not present any support for his opinions on the > website. > > Have you read his book? Yes, it is a bit scientific, so it was a bit hard to read, but very interesting. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. All there is is now. Time is only a timeless memory is this one and only now. /AL 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.