Guest guest Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > Part I - The " Who am I? " inquiry > > The " who am I? " question (or similar such " inquiries " ) is a reducto > ad absurdum process[1]. The purpose of the ad absurdum process is > to expose a " rogue search process " . " Who am I? " is reducto ad > absurdum because there is nothing that the question refers to. When > the question is " wrestled to the ground " (the inquiry) then it is > " seen " that there is nothing that is referred to. > > The " rogue search process " is a relentless inquisitor into things, > always wondering what things are about, what this is, what that is, > etc. etc. An illustration of this process at work is the infant or > toddler. It is basically an exploratory process seeking to > understand " the nature of things " . It is a " rogue " search process > in that it is essentially unbridled. But eventually its usefulness > comes to an end. At such time the appropriateness of the " I am " > inquiry comes into play, for the time comes when it is no longer > useful to continue the relentless discovery process but rather to > simply allow, to " let be " . > > When the " Who am I? " question is carried to its natural conclusion > such that the inherent absurdity of the question is finally " seen " > then a fundamental premise of the " rogue search process " is > undercut, namely the premise that there is " someone " that is > " wondering what things are about " . When that premise is blown, then > the rogue search process comes to an " ab end " (halts). > > Part II - The Human Information Processing System > > There is no " who " that the question " who am I? " refers to[2]. But > what-we-are is a much more complex question. What-we-are is not > simply nothing. For example, it is clear that we are in ways much > like an " information processing system " . Or perhaps more > accurately, the operation of an information processing system is at > work in the manifestation of " what we appear to be " . Hence I will > say that an information processing system is (or is a good metaphor > for) a *component of* what-we-are. > > A key characteristic of said information processing system (IPS) > is that it is " massively parallel " . This is well know from studies > of human behavior and the human brain. What this means is that the > IPS cannot be characterized by any single process. There are many, > many processes operating simultaneously. These myriad processes > can be thought of as " layers " the cumulative effect of which > produces the " manifestation activity " of the IPS as a whole. > > An illustration about layers... > > Photoshop is a computer graphics program. Photoshop allows the > creation, development, modification of images in " layers " . There > can be many many layers that successively build up an image. The > layers can be partial (pertain to just a portion of the image), or > translucent (they modify the underlying image, acting like a filter > on a camera lense), and/or semi-transparent (they are not 100% > opaque). By such a layering process a complex image can be built up > gradually and with exquisite control (I have used between 50 and > 100 layers on some of the images I have created). > > The Photoshop example illustrates the notion of " layers " being used > to create a complex cumulative result. The human information > processing system can be thought of as creating the appearance of > manifestation via complex layering as well, but rather than > composing static sub-images, the human IPS is dynamic and composes > multiple parallel dynamic *processes*. This is the very basis of > the Buddhist notion of " impermanence " -- because the processes are > myriad, with complex dynamic overlaying, what-is-going-on can never > be pinned down. What-is-going-on is always moving and is inherently > fleeting in nature. > > But what-we-are cannot be boiled down to an information processing > system. There is more. There is heart and there is spirit. Heart > and spirit are even more subtle, elusive than the operation of the > IPS. Discussion of these topics is left for a later time. For now > it is enough to note that the human information processing system > is not *complete* in accounting for what-we-are. > > > Notes: > 1. reductio ad absurdum - (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by > showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proff > of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction. > > 2. The notions " who " and " self " are equivalent in this context. That there > is no " who " that the question " Who am I? " refers to is equivalent to > saying there is no " self " referred to. > > > -Bill Rishel > 9-21-2004 Thank you Bill, On rare occasions....that which is nebulous......gets to peek up its own dress.......... It's always a shocking experience.........:-0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > Part I - The " Who am I? " inquiry > > The " who am I? " question (or similar such " inquiries " ) is a reducto > ad absurdum process[1]. The purpose of the ad absurdum process is > to expose a " rogue search process " . " Who am I? " is reducto ad > absurdum because there is nothing that the question refers to. When > the question is " wrestled to the ground " (the inquiry) then it is > " seen " that there is nothing that is referred to. > > The " rogue search process " is a relentless inquisitor into things, > always wondering what things are about, what this is, what that is, > etc. etc. An illustration of this process at work is the infant or > toddler. It is basically an exploratory process seeking to > understand " the nature of things " . It is a " rogue " search process > in that it is essentially unbridled. But eventually its usefulness > comes to an end. At such time the appropriateness of the " I am " > inquiry comes into play, for the time comes when it is no longer > useful to continue the relentless discovery process but rather to > simply allow, to " let be " . > > When the " Who am I? " question is carried to its natural conclusion > such that the inherent absurdity of the question is finally " seen " > then a fundamental premise of the " rogue search process " is > undercut, namely the premise that there is " someone " that is > " wondering what things are about " . When that premise is blown, then > the rogue search process comes to an " ab end " (halts). > > Part II - The Human Information Processing System > > There is no " who " that the question " who am I? " refers to[2]. But > what-we-are is a much more complex question. What-we-are is not > simply nothing. For example, it is clear that we are in ways much > like an " information processing system " . Or perhaps more > accurately, the operation of an information processing system is at > work in the manifestation of " what we appear to be " . Hence I will > say that an information processing system is (or is a good metaphor > for) a *component of* what-we-are. > > A key characteristic of said information processing system (IPS) > is that it is " massively parallel " . This is well know from studies > of human behavior and the human brain. What this means is that the > IPS cannot be characterized by any single process. There are many, > many processes operating simultaneously. These myriad processes > can be thought of as " layers " the cumulative effect of which > produces the " manifestation activity " of the IPS as a whole. > > An illustration about layers... > > Photoshop is a computer graphics program. Photoshop allows the > creation, development, modification of images in " layers " . There > can be many many layers that successively build up an image. The > layers can be partial (pertain to just a portion of the image), or > translucent (they modify the underlying image, acting like a filter > on a camera lense), and/or semi-transparent (they are not 100% > opaque). By such a layering process a complex image can be built up > gradually and with exquisite control (I have used between 50 and > 100 layers on some of the images I have created). > > The Photoshop example illustrates the notion of " layers " being used > to create a complex cumulative result. The human information > processing system can be thought of as creating the appearance of > manifestation via complex layering as well, but rather than > composing static sub-images, the human IPS is dynamic and composes > multiple parallel dynamic *processes*. This is the very basis of > the Buddhist notion of " impermanence " -- because the processes are > myriad, with complex dynamic overlaying, what-is-going-on can never > be pinned down. What-is-going-on is always moving and is inherently > fleeting in nature. > > But what-we-are cannot be boiled down to an information processing > system. There is more. There is heart and there is spirit. Heart > and spirit are even more subtle, elusive than the operation of the > IPS. Discussion of these topics is left for a later time. For now > it is enough to note that the human information processing system > is not *complete* in accounting for what-we-are. > > > Notes: > 1. reductio ad absurdum - (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by > showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proff > of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction. > > 2. The notions " who " and " self " are equivalent in this context. That there > is no " who " that the question " Who am I? " refers to is equivalent to > saying there is no " self " referred to. > > > -Bill Rishel > 9-21-2004 > Hi Bill, very good indeed! Truly! But a computer programmer could have answered me the same way!! Well actualy I already heard the same speech from a computer programmer! That doesn't make him a bouddha? or and awakened master as Ramana or Master Nisargadatta? Or is it? If that is the case... I'm going for a bacchelor " computer system prommame " :0))) I'm not laughing at you at all. All i'm trying to says is; IS Enlightenment at the level of words and theories? Take Love at an exemple. Do you love because you think you love or do you love because you simply love, without thinking??? I have a true question for you!!! Can you stop thinking? I mean truly stop your thoughts! Not think? I'm truly asking that question, no tricks behind! :0) Alberto, > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > > > Part I - The " Who am I? " inquiry > > > > The " who am I? " question (or similar such " inquiries " ) is a > reducto > > ad absurdum process[1]. The purpose of the ad absurdum process > is > > to expose a " rogue search process " . " Who am I? " is reducto ad > > absurdum because there is nothing that the question refers to. > When > > the question is " wrestled to the ground " (the inquiry) then it > is > > " seen " that there is nothing that is referred to. > > > > The " rogue search process " is a relentless inquisitor into > things, > > always wondering what things are about, what this is, what > that is, > > etc. etc. An illustration of this process at work is the > infant or > > toddler. It is basically an exploratory process seeking to > > understand " the nature of things " . It is a " rogue " search > process > > in that it is essentially unbridled. But eventually its > usefulness > > comes to an end. At such time the appropriateness of the " I am " > > inquiry comes into play, for the time comes when it is no > longer > > useful to continue the relentless discovery process but rather > to > > simply allow, to " let be " . > > > > When the " Who am I? " question is carried to its natural > conclusion > > such that the inherent absurdity of the question is > finally " seen " > > then a fundamental premise of the " rogue search process " is > > undercut, namely the premise that there is " someone " that is > > " wondering what things are about " . When that premise is blown, > then > > the rogue search process comes to an " ab end " (halts). > > > > Part II - The Human Information Processing System > > > > There is no " who " that the question " who am I? " refers to [2]. > But > > what-we-are is a much more complex question. What-we-are is not > > simply nothing. For example, it is clear that we are in ways > much > > like an " information processing system " . Or perhaps more > > accurately, the operation of an information processing system > is at > > work in the manifestation of " what we appear to be " . Hence I > will > > say that an information processing system is (or is a good > metaphor > > for) a *component of* what-we-are. > > > > A key characteristic of said information processing system > (IPS) > > is that it is " massively parallel " . This is well know from > studies > > of human behavior and the human brain. What this means is that > the > > IPS cannot be characterized by any single process. There are > many, > > many processes operating simultaneously. These myriad processes > > can be thought of as " layers " the cumulative effect of which > > produces the " manifestation activity " of the IPS as a whole. > > > > An illustration about layers... > > > > Photoshop is a computer graphics program. Photoshop allows the > > creation, development, modification of images in " layers " . > There > > can be many many layers that successively build up an image. > The > > layers can be partial (pertain to just a portion of the > image), or > > translucent (they modify the underlying image, acting like a > filter > > on a camera lense), and/or semi-transparent (they are not 100% > > opaque). By such a layering process a complex image can be > built up > > gradually and with exquisite control (I have used between 50 > and > > 100 layers on some of the images I have created). > > > > The Photoshop example illustrates the notion of " layers " being > used > > to create a complex cumulative result. The human information > > processing system can be thought of as creating the appearance > of > > manifestation via complex layering as well, but rather than > > composing static sub-images, the human IPS is dynamic and > composes > > multiple parallel dynamic *processes*. This is the very basis > of > > the Buddhist notion of " impermanence " -- because the processes > are > > myriad, with complex dynamic overlaying, what-is-going-on can > never > > be pinned down. What-is-going-on is always moving and is > inherently > > fleeting in nature. > > > > But what-we-are cannot be boiled down to an information > processing > > system. There is more. There is heart and there is spirit. > Heart > > and spirit are even more subtle, elusive than the operation of > the > > IPS. Discussion of these topics is left for a later time. For > now > > it is enough to note that the human information processing > system > > is not *complete* in accounting for what-we-are. > > > > > > Notes: > > 1. reductio ad absurdum - (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by > > showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a > proff > > of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to a > contradiction. > > > > 2. The notions " who " and " self " are equivalent in this context. > That there > > is no " who " that the question " Who am I? " refers to is equivalent > to > > saying there is no " self " referred to. > > > > > > -Bill Rishel > > 9-21-2004 > > > Hi Bill, very good indeed! Truly! But a computer programmer could > have answered me the same way!! Well actualy I already heard the > same speech from a computer programmer! That doesn't make him a > bouddha? or and awakened master as Ramana or Master Nisargadatta? > Or is it? If that is the case... I'm going for a bacchelor " > computer system prommame " :0))) I'm not laughing at you at all. All > i'm trying to says is; IS Enlightenment at the level of words and > theories? Take Love at an exemple. Do you love because you think you > love or do you love because you simply love, without thinking??? > > I have a true question for you!!! > > Can you stop thinking? I mean truly stop your thoughts! Not think? > I'm truly asking that question, no tricks behind! :0) > Alberto, > > Bill, I'm talking about the emptyness between two thoughts! You guys know what I mean, no? It is a simple question! :0) Alberto, > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 - toombaru2004 Nisargadatta Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:31 AM Re: Not-A-Self Not-Nothing Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > Part I - The " Who am I? " inquiry > > The " who am I? " question (or similar such " inquiries " ) is a reducto > ad absurdum process[1]. The purpose of the ad absurdum process is > to expose a " rogue search process " . " Who am I? " is reducto ad > absurdum because there is nothing that the question refers to. When > the question is " wrestled to the ground " (the inquiry) then it is > " seen " that there is nothing that is referred to. > > The " rogue search process " is a relentless inquisitor into things, > always wondering what things are about, what this is, what that is, > etc. etc. An illustration of this process at work is the infant or > toddler. It is basically an exploratory process seeking to > understand " the nature of things " . It is a " rogue " search process > in that it is essentially unbridled. But eventually its usefulness > comes to an end. At such time the appropriateness of the " I am " > inquiry comes into play, for the time comes when it is no longer > useful to continue the relentless discovery process but rather to > simply allow, to " let be " . > > When the " Who am I? " question is carried to its natural conclusion > such that the inherent absurdity of the question is finally " seen " > then a fundamental premise of the " rogue search process " is > undercut, namely the premise that there is " someone " that is > " wondering what things are about " . When that premise is blown, then > the rogue search process comes to an " ab end " (halts). > > Part II - The Human Information Processing System > > There is no " who " that the question " who am I? " refers to[2]. But > what-we-are is a much more complex question. What-we-are is not > simply nothing. For example, it is clear that we are in ways much > like an " information processing system " . Or perhaps more > accurately, the operation of an information processing system is at > work in the manifestation of " what we appear to be " . Hence I will > say that an information processing system is (or is a good metaphor > for) a *component of* what-we-are. > > A key characteristic of said information processing system (IPS) > is that it is " massively parallel " . This is well know from studies > of human behavior and the human brain. What this means is that the > IPS cannot be characterized by any single process. There are many, > many processes operating simultaneously. These myriad processes > can be thought of as " layers " the cumulative effect of which > produces the " manifestation activity " of the IPS as a whole. > > An illustration about layers... > > Photoshop is a computer graphics program. Photoshop allows the > creation, development, modification of images in " layers " . There > can be many many layers that successively build up an image. The > layers can be partial (pertain to just a portion of the image), or > translucent (they modify the underlying image, acting like a filter > on a camera lense), and/or semi-transparent (they are not 100% > opaque). By such a layering process a complex image can be built up > gradually and with exquisite control (I have used between 50 and > 100 layers on some of the images I have created). > > The Photoshop example illustrates the notion of " layers " being used > to create a complex cumulative result. The human information > processing system can be thought of as creating the appearance of > manifestation via complex layering as well, but rather than > composing static sub-images, the human IPS is dynamic and composes > multiple parallel dynamic *processes*. This is the very basis of > the Buddhist notion of " impermanence " -- because the processes are > myriad, with complex dynamic overlaying, what-is-going-on can never > be pinned down. What-is-going-on is always moving and is inherently > fleeting in nature. > > But what-we-are cannot be boiled down to an information processing > system. There is more. There is heart and there is spirit. Heart > and spirit are even more subtle, elusive than the operation of the > IPS. Discussion of these topics is left for a later time. For now > it is enough to note that the human information processing system > is not *complete* in accounting for what-we-are. > > > Notes: > 1. reductio ad absurdum - (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by > showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proff > of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction. > > 2. The notions " who " and " self " are equivalent in this context. That there > is no " who " that the question " Who am I? " refers to is equivalent to > saying there is no " self " referred to. > > > -Bill Rishel > 9-21-2004 Thank you Bill, On rare occasions....that which is nebulous......gets to peek up its own dress.......... It's always a shocking experience.........:-0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're such fun toombaru! And it is always fun when we're not stuck on conventional notions, eh? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Hi Bill, very good indeed! Truly! But a computer programmer could have answered me the same way!! Well actualy I already heard the same speech from a computer programmer! That doesn't make him a bouddha? or and awakened master as Ramana or Master Nisargadatta? Or is it? If that is the case... I'm going for a bacchelor " computer system prommame " :0))) I'm not laughing at you at all. All i'm trying to says is; IS Enlightenment at the level of words and theories? Take Love at an exemple. Do you love because you think you love or do you love because you simply love, without thinking??? >>>> While I dón't know what you are driving at, I is quite clear to me that: One loves truly only because one simply loves, without thinking. It is not that *one loves* really, but that love simply is realized to be the case. Love is very fast. So we are lucky if we can catch it in the act! And how can we be so lucky? By leaving everything behind. Love moves at " the speed of light " (so to speak), and we can't catch up unless we have dropped ALLLL our baggage. <<<< I have a true question for you!!! Can you stop thinking? I mean truly stop your thoughts! Not think? I'm truly asking that question, no tricks behind! :0) Alberto, >>>> I don't have the experience of " intentionally stopping thought " . In fact, that seems a contradiction in terms somehow. But as for *absence of thought*, heck yes. Most of the time. Thought arises now and then for specific purposes, but even then it is not an annoying " voice in the head " etc. It is really just a matter of intent. If I want to develop an approach I have been working on in software, for example, then I will get quiet, perhaps lay down, and then " let the wheels spin " . I will witness various kinds of configurations appearing in my mind, make choices, etc., until I am satisfied. Then I'm done and no thought once again. Bill - ilikezen2004 Nisargadatta Tuesday, September 21, 2004 3:11 PM Re: Not-A-Self Not-Nothing Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > Part I - The " Who am I? " inquiry > > The " who am I? " question (or similar such " inquiries " ) is a reducto > ad absurdum process[1]. The purpose of the ad absurdum process is > to expose a " rogue search process " . " Who am I? " is reducto ad > absurdum because there is nothing that the question refers to. When > the question is " wrestled to the ground " (the inquiry) then it is > " seen " that there is nothing that is referred to. > > The " rogue search process " is a relentless inquisitor into things, > always wondering what things are about, what this is, what that is, > etc. etc. An illustration of this process at work is the infant or > toddler. It is basically an exploratory process seeking to > understand " the nature of things " . It is a " rogue " search process > in that it is essentially unbridled. But eventually its usefulness > comes to an end. At such time the appropriateness of the " I am " > inquiry comes into play, for the time comes when it is no longer > useful to continue the relentless discovery process but rather to > simply allow, to " let be " . > > When the " Who am I? " question is carried to its natural conclusion > such that the inherent absurdity of the question is finally " seen " > then a fundamental premise of the " rogue search process " is > undercut, namely the premise that there is " someone " that is > " wondering what things are about " . When that premise is blown, then > the rogue search process comes to an " ab end " (halts). > > Part II - The Human Information Processing System > > There is no " who " that the question " who am I? " refers to[2]. But > what-we-are is a much more complex question. What-we-are is not > simply nothing. For example, it is clear that we are in ways much > like an " information processing system " . Or perhaps more > accurately, the operation of an information processing system is at > work in the manifestation of " what we appear to be " . Hence I will > say that an information processing system is (or is a good metaphor > for) a *component of* what-we-are. > > A key characteristic of said information processing system (IPS) > is that it is " massively parallel " . This is well know from studies > of human behavior and the human brain. What this means is that the > IPS cannot be characterized by any single process. There are many, > many processes operating simultaneously. These myriad processes > can be thought of as " layers " the cumulative effect of which > produces the " manifestation activity " of the IPS as a whole. > > An illustration about layers... > > Photoshop is a computer graphics program. Photoshop allows the > creation, development, modification of images in " layers " . There > can be many many layers that successively build up an image. The > layers can be partial (pertain to just a portion of the image), or > translucent (they modify the underlying image, acting like a filter > on a camera lense), and/or semi-transparent (they are not 100% > opaque). By such a layering process a complex image can be built up > gradually and with exquisite control (I have used between 50 and > 100 layers on some of the images I have created). > > The Photoshop example illustrates the notion of " layers " being used > to create a complex cumulative result. The human information > processing system can be thought of as creating the appearance of > manifestation via complex layering as well, but rather than > composing static sub-images, the human IPS is dynamic and composes > multiple parallel dynamic *processes*. This is the very basis of > the Buddhist notion of " impermanence " -- because the processes are > myriad, with complex dynamic overlaying, what-is-going-on can never > be pinned down. What-is-going-on is always moving and is inherently > fleeting in nature. > > But what-we-are cannot be boiled down to an information processing > system. There is more. There is heart and there is spirit. Heart > and spirit are even more subtle, elusive than the operation of the > IPS. Discussion of these topics is left for a later time. For now > it is enough to note that the human information processing system > is not *complete* in accounting for what-we-are. > > > Notes: > 1. reductio ad absurdum - (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by > showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proff > of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction. > > 2. The notions " who " and " self " are equivalent in this context. That there > is no " who " that the question " Who am I? " refers to is equivalent to > saying there is no " self " referred to. > > > -Bill Rishel > 9-21-2004 > Hi Bill, very good indeed! Truly! But a computer programmer could have answered me the same way!! Well actualy I already heard the same speech from a computer programmer! That doesn't make him a bouddha? or and awakened master as Ramana or Master Nisargadatta? Or is it? If that is the case... I'm going for a bacchelor " computer system prommame " :0))) I'm not laughing at you at all. All i'm trying to says is; IS Enlightenment at the level of words and theories? Take Love at an exemple. Do you love because you think you love or do you love because you simply love, without thinking??? I have a true question for you!!! Can you stop thinking? I mean truly stop your thoughts! Not think? I'm truly asking that question, no tricks behind! :0) Alberto, > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 > Bill, I'm talking about the emptyness between two thoughts! You guys know what I mean, no? It is a simple question! :0) Alberto, >>>>>>>>> Look at it this way: There is Emptiness. Everywhere. And here and there, as an occasional " raisin " , a thought. But, it seems to me, that as I become " totally distilled " then thought doesn't appear *as such*. So really, the thoughts don't " appear " in my experience. If there is a thought then there is an " activation " and then something happens. I witness the activation, the something-happens (in a *most fleeting sense*!), but the thought per se, doesn't really " exist " in my experience. Isn't it a myth, the notion of " contemplating a thought " ? Bill 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.