Guest guest Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: Hi Bill, See two answers below between your text. > <<<<<<< >> >Bill: My account is admittedly rather confusing (though not a lot I > can do about that). The " something " I refer to there is something > that I " apprehended " at that particular time and which I haven't really > thought about since, except the couple of occasions such as this > when I have described that experience. I did sense " something " > but it was so *rarified*... and I feel some kind of inhibition > at even trying to describe. And I know if I *did* try to describe > it would be generally misinterpreted. Anyway, whatever that " something " > was, I don't dwell on it. It is not important it seems. What *was* > important for me -- it seems -- is that I somehow saw in a very > clear way that neither my feelings or my thoughts were " me " nor > were they in a sense even *OF* me (not that there is a " me " mind > you... words are such a tangle!). > P: Yes, you are right. Once that's seen it is better to leave it alone for a while at least. Trying to explain it, would only obscure it. There will come a point, in which, 'it' will translate itself into some kind of understanding of what it is not. And this understanding of what it is not, would somehow make 'it' unmistakably distinct. What makes all this so difficult, is the fact that the very urge to explain, and understand becomes, at one point, the obstacle to overcome. Even beyond this urge to understand, there is always a subtle expectation, an expectation of what it's to come. It's this constant state of expectation that has to drop for the 'it realization' to come. Of course, this dropping can not be willed, because that would be another expectation. > <<<<< P: What is there, is there in its sensate wholeness. As if the body had > acquired an extra sense by which to feel what was seen before as the > world. And what was before the outside, is now as intimate as the > subjective was before. No objective, no subjective, only this. The > me/memories come and go on this, but are no longer an 'I' in need of > protection. Solidity and voidness interchange places like the two views > of an optical illusion that has been cracked. The endless subject is > the infinite object, and yet neither. That sort of thing? > >>>>> Bill: Yep. > What a weird sensation to read what you wrote above. > The way you put " sense " into it... > I don't know if I would want to do that... but am unsure. > Yes, it is all one ball of wax... > But I can't apprehend " What Is " as such. > Sometimes/often/most always(/maybe always?) it seems as > if there is a kind of " void numbness " (and I *really* hesitate > to put those words to it)... it is just *so weird*... it is > vivid, it is clear, yet there is no HANDLE anywhere. It is as > if my ability to apperceive had been surgically removed. It is > as if the whole world (including my own subjectivity) were like > the blind spot of the eye. Or again, as if What Is were a > " null pointer " and that all I sense there is a vague, broadly > spread kind of numbness. > > So yes, as you say, in that subjective/objective are inseparable... > but the " whole " that supposedly represents " all of it " now... > that whole I cannot " sense " per se. But really that makes sense, > for any " I " can only be that " whole " , and that whole cannot sense > itself. In that regard the blind spot of the eye is a perfect > analogy. > P: Yes, this expectation of change, is almost the very nature of consciousness. Perception of change is consciousness itself in a way. So per definition, consciousness of the immutable is impossible. That's why, in Buddhism, one of the highest jhanas is neither consciousness, nor unconsciousness. Niz said, 'awareness is not aware of itself. " But can awareness be aware of unconsciousness? I think that in that 'flash' in which awareness realizes the unconscious 'Ground Zero' is where the absolute takes a pick at itself. That glimpse is not sustainable while in the body. We could say things like, " that has always been the case. " but that's just another thought, because there is not really a 'who' for which that has always been the case. Consciousness must always remain the instrument of the perception of change, and the immutable will remain, always, beyond its purview. Thanks for the wonderful input, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Pete: But can awareness be aware of unconsciousness? I think that in that 'flash' in which awareness realizes the unconscious 'Ground Zero' is where the absolute takes a pick at itself. That glimpse is not sustainable while in the body. We could say things like, " that has always been the case. " but that's just another thought, because there is not really a 'who' for which that has always been the case. Consciousness must always remain the instrument of the perception of change, and the immutable will remain, always, beyond its purview. >>>> Intriguing remark. Brings to mind the Tibetian Book of the Dead. I have come to the conclusion that I must let go of the notion of Consciousness. It is not a useful concept, it seems. It is a concept that has served its usefulness (for me). What Is is undiffentiateable. Nothing can really be said about it. The " trick " is to *settle for nothing* : ) Somehow one comes to understand and *accept* that nothing can be added to the undifferentiatedness of What Is. So the me the " immutable " is simply What Is. And your statement about " beyond its purview " corresponds to the fact that nothing can be said about it. It can in no way be objectified. There can be no *perceiver* of What Is. What you are saying about Ground Zero etc. may be beyond what I am saying above. I don't know. But I am confident that you agree that nothing can be added to utter simplicity, and nothing can be taken away. When we come to utter simplicity we come to non-distinction with What Is. Indeed, what " we " is there anymore? What Is is unspeakable, immutable, and without a Subject. Bill - cerosoul Nisargadatta Saturday, September 04, 2004 9:24 AM Re: Nisargadatta 101/Bill Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: Hi Bill, See two answers below between your text. > <<<<<<< >> >Bill: My account is admittedly rather confusing (though not a lot I > can do about that). The " something " I refer to there is something > that I " apprehended " at that particular time and which I haven't really > thought about since, except the couple of occasions such as this > when I have described that experience. I did sense " something " > but it was so *rarified*... and I feel some kind of inhibition > at even trying to describe. And I know if I *did* try to describe > it would be generally misinterpreted. Anyway, whatever that " something " > was, I don't dwell on it. It is not important it seems. What *was* > important for me -- it seems -- is that I somehow saw in a very > clear way that neither my feelings or my thoughts were " me " nor > were they in a sense even *OF* me (not that there is a " me " mind > you... words are such a tangle!). > P: Yes, you are right. Once that's seen it is better to leave it alone for a while at least. Trying to explain it, would only obscure it. There will come a point, in which, 'it' will translate itself into some kind of understanding of what it is not. And this understanding of what it is not, would somehow make 'it' unmistakably distinct. What makes all this so difficult, is the fact that the very urge to explain, and understand becomes, at one point, the obstacle to overcome. Even beyond this urge to understand, there is always a subtle expectation, an expectation of what it's to come. It's this constant state of expectation that has to drop for the 'it realization' to come. Of course, this dropping can not be willed, because that would be another expectation. > <<<<< P: What is there, is there in its sensate wholeness. As if the body had > acquired an extra sense by which to feel what was seen before as the > world. And what was before the outside, is now as intimate as the > subjective was before. No objective, no subjective, only this. The > me/memories come and go on this, but are no longer an 'I' in need of > protection. Solidity and voidness interchange places like the two views > of an optical illusion that has been cracked. The endless subject is > the infinite object, and yet neither. That sort of thing? > >>>>> Bill: Yep. > What a weird sensation to read what you wrote above. > The way you put " sense " into it... > I don't know if I would want to do that... but am unsure. > Yes, it is all one ball of wax... > But I can't apprehend " What Is " as such. > Sometimes/often/most always(/maybe always?) it seems as > if there is a kind of " void numbness " (and I *really* hesitate > to put those words to it)... it is just *so weird*... it is > vivid, it is clear, yet there is no HANDLE anywhere. It is as > if my ability to apperceive had been surgically removed. It is > as if the whole world (including my own subjectivity) were like > the blind spot of the eye. Or again, as if What Is were a > " null pointer " and that all I sense there is a vague, broadly > spread kind of numbness. > > So yes, as you say, in that subjective/objective are inseparable... > but the " whole " that supposedly represents " all of it " now... > that whole I cannot " sense " per se. But really that makes sense, > for any " I " can only be that " whole " , and that whole cannot sense > itself. In that regard the blind spot of the eye is a perfect > analogy. > P: Yes, this expectation of change, is almost the very nature of consciousness. Perception of change is consciousness itself in a way. So per definition, consciousness of the immutable is impossible. That's why, in Buddhism, one of the highest jhanas is neither consciousness, nor unconsciousness. Niz said, 'awareness is not aware of itself. " But can awareness be aware of unconsciousness? I think that in that 'flash' in which awareness realizes the unconscious 'Ground Zero' is where the absolute takes a pick at itself. That glimpse is not sustainable while in the body. We could say things like, " that has always been the case. " but that's just another thought, because there is not really a 'who' for which that has always been the case. Consciousness must always remain the instrument of the perception of change, and the immutable will remain, always, beyond its purview. Thanks for the wonderful input, Pete ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Pete: > But can awareness be aware of unconsciousness? I think > that in that 'flash' in which awareness realizes the > unconscious 'Ground Zero' is where the absolute takes a pick at > itself. That glimpse is not sustainable while in the body. We could > say things like, " that has always been the case. " but that's just > another thought, because there is not really a 'who' for which that > has always been the case. Consciousness must always remain the > instrument of the perception of change, > and the immutable will remain, always, beyond its purview. > >>>> > Bill: Intriguing remark. Brings to mind the Tibetian Book of the Dead. P: Glad you told that. I have not read the book, and now I see by what you wrote, that I didn't need to. > >BILL: I have come to the conclusion that I must let go of the notion of > Consciousness. It is not a useful concept, it seems. It is a concept > that has served its usefulness (for me). P: It could, also, if made into some divine creative principle, as some people try to do, become a sticking point, a blindfold taking the shape of a motto like: " consciousness is all " or I'm pure consciousness. " > >BIll: What Is is undiffentiateable. Nothing can really be said about it. > The " trick " is to *settle for nothing* : ) > Somehow one comes to understand and *accept* that nothing > can be added to the undifferentiatedness of What Is. > > So the me the " immutable " is simply What Is. > And your statement about " beyond its purview " corresponds > to the fact that nothing can be said about it. It can in no way > be objectified. There can be no *perceiver* of What Is. > > What you are saying about Ground Zero etc. may be beyond > what I am saying above. I don't know. > > But I am confident that you agree that nothing can be added > to utter simplicity, and nothing can be taken away. > > When we come to utter simplicity we come to non-distinction > with What Is. P: Yes, agreed. It could be said that 'delusion' and realization are two different, and at the same time illusory point of views. Let's try to clarify this with a meta4, keeping in mind that like all meta4s it is intended only as a rough illustration. Let's say the totality is a skyscraper, and the 'I sense' are innumerable raiders going up and down, each in its personal elevator. Each raider is nothing but a point of view from a different floor. The raiders have no idea how tall the building is. Each floor the view gets better; each floor may seem like the last floor. Of course, for most raiders these elevators don't go straight to the top floor and stay there. Most elevators go up a few floors and come down again. The view enjoyed at the tenth fl. becomes a memory once the elevator goes back down. It's impossible to have both views, simultaneously. Not even when the top floor is reached can this view be sustained at a lower fl. It's only when all these spectaculars views, along with the raiders, and elevators are seen as illusory that a sense of the whole building as Ground Zero comes into view. Into the view of whom? No one. It's only the 'view' enjoying t the 'view.' See ya, Pete ] 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.