Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > Mind......any mind has no option but to agree only with concepts > that harmonize with its storehouse of accumulated ....self- > referential......beliefs. > > > > It cannot believe anything that it finds unbelievable. > > > > It is itself only and accumulation of beliefs.....picked up here > and there......random flotsam....swirling around an empty " I " . > > > > and unfortunately.....it is the only tool available to itself.... > in the attempt the understand its own limitations. > > I agree that the mind working through a forest of concepts, i.e. the > rational intellect, is limited to its own collected storehouse of > beliefs. However, every set of concepts - each bundle of labels - can > only give a limited view of what is. Concepts are very valuable in > getting a cohersive picture of what we experience. And that is good. > Yet, the fact remains that every heap of concepts is static and > limited in nature. Reality as is is a wholeness and within the whole > there is the illusion of conflict. The rational intellect draws its > conclutions from a limited and static heap of concepts, beliefs, > whereas spiritual knowledge connects to the whole picture. So, a > state of knowing beyond the intellect is what is required in order to > get in touch with the larger picture. The recognition of the > limitation of the intellect and the obviousness of the same intellect > being limited to abstractions makes it easy to realize the foundation > for a deeper reality. This means, that the tools available to an > individual are not necessarily limited to intellectual concepts. > > /AL What if ............there is no reality.....beyond concepts about reality? What if....there is nothing beyond the dream of separation? What if .....THIS........is all there is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > Mind......any mind has no option but to agree only with concepts > > that harmonize with its storehouse of accumulated ....self- > > referential......beliefs. > > > > > > It cannot believe anything that it finds unbelievable. > > > > > > It is itself only and accumulation of beliefs.....picked up here > > and there......random flotsam....swirling around an empty " I " . > > > > > > and unfortunately.....it is the only tool available to itself.... > > in the attempt the understand its own limitations. > > > > I agree that the mind working through a forest of concepts, i.e. the > > rational intellect, is limited to its own collected storehouse of > > beliefs. However, every set of concepts - each bundle of labels - can > > only give a limited view of what is. Concepts are very valuable in > > getting a cohersive picture of what we experience. And that is good. > > Yet, the fact remains that every heap of concepts is static and > > limited in nature. Reality as is is a wholeness and within the whole > > there is the illusion of conflict. The rational intellect draws its > > conclutions from a limited and static heap of concepts, beliefs, > > whereas spiritual knowledge connects to the whole picture. So, a > > state of knowing beyond the intellect is what is required in order to > > get in touch with the larger picture. The recognition of the > > limitation of the intellect and the obviousness of the same intellect > > being limited to abstractions makes it easy to realize the foundation > > for a deeper reality. This means, that the tools available to an > > individual are not necessarily limited to intellectual concepts. > > > > /AL > > > What if ............there is no reality.....beyond concepts about reality? > > > What if....there is nothing beyond the dream of separation? > > What if .....THIS........is all there is? THIS, is all there is. But have you found the limits to what THIS is? The human mind easily gets trapped in abstractions. But the simple noticing of sense perceptions of the aliveness right now, in mind, body and the 'external' world is a direct witness to non-abstract beingness. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind......any mind has no option but to agree only with > concepts > > > that harmonize with its storehouse of accumulated ....self- > > > referential......beliefs. > > > > > > > > It cannot believe anything that it finds unbelievable. > > > > > > > > It is itself only and accumulation of beliefs.....picked up > here > > > and there......random flotsam....swirling around an empty " I " . > > > > > > > > and unfortunately.....it is the only tool available to > itself.... > > > in the attempt the understand its own limitations. > > > > > > I agree that the mind working through a forest of concepts, i.e. > the > > > rational intellect, is limited to its own collected storehouse of > > > beliefs. However, every set of concepts - each bundle of labels - > can > > > only give a limited view of what is. Concepts are very valuable > in > > > getting a cohersive picture of what we experience. And that is > good. > > > Yet, the fact remains that every heap of concepts is static and > > > limited in nature. Reality as is is a wholeness and within the > whole > > > there is the illusion of conflict. The rational intellect draws > its > > > conclutions from a limited and static heap of concepts, beliefs, > > > whereas spiritual knowledge connects to the whole picture. So, a > > > state of knowing beyond the intellect is what is required in > order to > > > get in touch with the larger picture. The recognition of the > > > limitation of the intellect and the obviousness of the same > intellect > > > being limited to abstractions makes it easy to realize the > foundation > > > for a deeper reality. This means, that the tools available to an > > > individual are not necessarily limited to intellectual concepts. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > What if ............there is no reality.....beyond concepts about > reality? > > > > > > What if....there is nothing beyond the dream of separation? > > > > What if .....THIS........is all there is? > > THIS, is all there is. But have you found the limits to what THIS is? > The human mind easily gets trapped in abstractions. But the simple > noticing of sense perceptions of the aliveness right now, in mind, > body and the 'external' world is a direct witness to non-abstract > beingness. > > /AL Is a fraction ever able to see the whole? The mind...is the trap......It can " see " nothing outside of its self..... and ...perhaps......there is nothing.....outside of the illusion of self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind......any mind has no option but to agree only with > > concepts > > > > that harmonize with its storehouse of accumulated ....self- > > > > referential......beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > It cannot believe anything that it finds unbelievable. > > > > > > > > > > It is itself only and accumulation of beliefs.....picked up > > here > > > > and there......random flotsam....swirling around an empty " I " . > > > > > > > > > > and unfortunately.....it is the only tool available to > > itself.... > > > > in the attempt the understand its own limitations. > > > > > > > > I agree that the mind working through a forest of concepts, i.e. > > the > > > > rational intellect, is limited to its own collected storehouse of > > > > beliefs. However, every set of concepts - each bundle of labels - > > can > > > > only give a limited view of what is. Concepts are very valuable > > in > > > > getting a cohersive picture of what we experience. And that is > > good. > > > > Yet, the fact remains that every heap of concepts is static and > > > > limited in nature. Reality as is is a wholeness and within the > > whole > > > > there is the illusion of conflict. The rational intellect draws > > its > > > > conclutions from a limited and static heap of concepts, beliefs, > > > > whereas spiritual knowledge connects to the whole picture. So, a > > > > state of knowing beyond the intellect is what is required in > > order to > > > > get in touch with the larger picture. The recognition of the > > > > limitation of the intellect and the obviousness of the same > > intellect > > > > being limited to abstractions makes it easy to realize the > > foundation > > > > for a deeper reality. This means, that the tools available to an > > > > individual are not necessarily limited to intellectual concepts. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > What if ............there is no reality.....beyond concepts about > > reality? > > > > > > > > > What if....there is nothing beyond the dream of separation? > > > > > > What if .....THIS........is all there is? > > > > THIS, is all there is. But have you found the limits to what THIS is? > > The human mind easily gets trapped in abstractions. But the simple > > noticing of sense perceptions of the aliveness right now, in mind, > > body and the 'external' world is a direct witness to non-abstract > > beingness. > > > > /AL > > > > Is a fraction ever able to see the whole? > > The mind...is the trap......It can " see " nothing outside of its self..... > > > and ...perhaps......there is nothing.....outside of the illusion of self. What is seeing the fraction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > <cptc@w...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind......any mind has no option but to agree only with > > > concepts > > > > > that harmonize with its storehouse of accumulated ....self- > > > > > referential......beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > > > It cannot believe anything that it finds unbelievable. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is itself only and accumulation of beliefs.....picked up > > > here > > > > > and there......random flotsam....swirling around an empty " I " . > > > > > > > > > > > > and unfortunately.....it is the only tool available to > > > itself.... > > > > > in the attempt the understand its own limitations. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that the mind working through a forest of concepts, > i.e. > > > the > > > > > rational intellect, is limited to its own collected > storehouse of > > > > > beliefs. However, every set of concepts - each bundle of > labels - > > > can > > > > > only give a limited view of what is. Concepts are very > valuable > > > in > > > > > getting a cohersive picture of what we experience. And that > is > > > good. > > > > > Yet, the fact remains that every heap of concepts is static > and > > > > > limited in nature. Reality as is is a wholeness and within > the > > > whole > > > > > there is the illusion of conflict. The rational intellect > draws > > > its > > > > > conclutions from a limited and static heap of concepts, > beliefs, > > > > > whereas spiritual knowledge connects to the whole picture. > So, a > > > > > state of knowing beyond the intellect is what is required in > > > order to > > > > > get in touch with the larger picture. The recognition of the > > > > > limitation of the intellect and the obviousness of the same > > > intellect > > > > > being limited to abstractions makes it easy to realize the > > > foundation > > > > > for a deeper reality. This means, that the tools available to > an > > > > > individual are not necessarily limited to intellectual > concepts. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > What if ............there is no reality.....beyond concepts > about > > > reality? > > > > > > > > > > > > What if....there is nothing beyond the dream of separation? > > > > > > > > What if .....THIS........is all there is? > > > > > > THIS, is all there is. But have you found the limits to what THIS > is? > > > The human mind easily gets trapped in abstractions. But the > simple > > > noticing of sense perceptions of the aliveness right now, in > mind, > > > body and the 'external' world is a direct witness to non-abstract > > > beingness. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > Is a fraction ever able to see the whole? > > > > The mind...is the trap......It can " see " nothing outside of its > self..... > > > > > > and ...perhaps......there is nothing.....outside of the illusion of > self. > > What is seeing the fraction? You assume that there is some Thing to be seen....and some Thing that sees. It is from this........assumption...this I-amness.......this illusion of duality.......that the whole hoopla emerges. The " fraction " cannot be seen..........the whirlpool cannot see the river.....and it cannot see itself.......its totality ....is its own swirling...............moment-to-moment-ness....... The nature of time prevents it from ever seeing its own leading edge............ .....it is not a thing...............at all.......it is not a fraction of a thing.......it is the thing itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > .... > > > > What is seeing the fraction? > > > > > You assume that there is some Thing to be seen....and some Thing that sees. > > > It is from this........assumption...this I-amness.......this illusion of duality.......that the whole > hoopla emerges. > > > The " fraction " cannot be seen..........the whirlpool cannot see the river.....and it cannot see > itself.......its totality ....is its own swirling...............moment-to-moment-ness....... > > > > The nature of time prevents it from ever seeing its own leading edge............ > > > ....it is not a thing...............at all.......it is not a fraction of a thing.......it is the thing itself. True. The whirlpool cannot see the river. Nor can the whirlpool see itself, just like the eye cannot see itself. The eye cannot even see itself in a mirror. It's in the visual cortext in the brain where the image of the eye in the mirror is assembled. The eye.........is a part of the wirlpool..............and so......is...the brain. Consciousness..............is the river. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > What is seeing the fraction? > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is some Thing to be seen....and some Thing > that sees. > > > > > > It is from this........assumption...this I-amness.......this > illusion of duality.......that the whole > > hoopla emerges. > > > > > > The " fraction " cannot be seen..........the whirlpool cannot see the > river.....and it cannot see > > itself.......its totality ....is its own > swirling...............moment-to-moment-ness....... > > > > > > > > The nature of time prevents it from ever seeing its own leading > edge............ > > > > > > ....it is not a thing...............at all.......it is not a > fraction of a thing.......it is the thing itself. > > True. The whirlpool cannot see the river. Nor can the whirlpool see > itself, just like the eye cannot see itself. The eye cannot even see > itself in a mirror. It's in the visual cortext in the brain where the > image of the eye in the mirror is assembled. The eye.........is a > part of the wirlpool..............and so......is...the brain. > Consciousness..............is the river. > > /AL I love this river-of-consciousness idea............everything does appear to be moving....flowing.... but........ One wonders if this whirlpool vs river concept is only a more subtle expression of the God and creation theory that the " whirlpool " ......(once it accepts its own autonomy)......imagines to be the hiearchial nature of " What-Is " ...... ........ " ....I am.....I am small.......I see other things.......Something must have made all of this........What ever made this must be prior to and bigger then what it made........etc... " Once the " I-am " is accepted as a given..... I wonder if anything that it intuits .....can hold water.......... (Al....I am not arguing with what you said........just playing in the river...LOL.....:-) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > What is seeing the fraction? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is some Thing to be seen....and some Thing > > that sees. > > > > > > > > > It is from this........assumption...this I-amness.......this > > illusion of duality.......that the whole > > > hoopla emerges. > > > > > > > > > The " fraction " cannot be seen..........the whirlpool cannot see the > > river.....and it cannot see > > > itself.......its totality ....is its own > > swirling...............moment-to-moment-ness....... > > > > > > > > > > > > The nature of time prevents it from ever seeing its own leading > > edge............ > > > > > > > > > ....it is not a thing...............at all.......it is not a > > fraction of a thing.......it is the thing itself. > > > > True. The whirlpool cannot see the river. Nor can the whirlpool see > > itself, just like the eye cannot see itself. The eye cannot even see > > itself in a mirror. It's in the visual cortext in the brain where the > > image of the eye in the mirror is assembled. The eye.........is a > > part of the wirlpool..............and so......is...the brain. > > Consciousness..............is the river. > > > > /AL > > > > I love this river-of-consciousness idea............everything does appear to be moving....flowing.... > > > > but........ > > > > One wonders if this whirlpool vs river concept is only a more subtle expression of the God and creation theory that the " whirlpool " ......(once it accepts its own autonomy)......imagines to be the hiearchial nature of " What-Is " ...... > > ....... " ....I am.....I am small.......I see other things.......Something must have made all of this........What ever made this must be prior to and bigger then what it made........etc... " > > Once the " I-am " is accepted as a given..... > > I wonder if anything that it intuits .....can hold water.......... > > > > > (Al....I am not arguing with what you said........just playing in the river...LOL.....:-) > > > toombaru Hi toombaru, Yes, wirlpool and river and stuff are still 'stuff'. I recently thought of 'no thing' as the Mother of all stuff. My mind cannot possible grasp this 'no thing', but we could picture it as a formless/formfull, sizeless/all-size, and timeless/timefull blob that is not even a blob. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > What is seeing the fraction? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is some Thing to be seen....and some > Thing > > > that sees. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is from this........assumption...this I-amness.......this > > > illusion of duality.......that the whole > > > > hoopla emerges. > > > > > > > > > > > > The " fraction " cannot be seen..........the whirlpool cannot see > the > > > river.....and it cannot see > > > > itself.......its totality ....is its own > > > swirling...............moment-to-moment-ness....... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The nature of time prevents it from ever seeing its own leading > > > edge............ > > > > > > > > > > > > ....it is not a thing...............at all.......it is not a > > > fraction of a thing.......it is the thing itself. > > > > > > True. The whirlpool cannot see the river. Nor can the whirlpool > see > > > itself, just like the eye cannot see itself. The eye cannot even > see > > > itself in a mirror. It's in the visual cortext in the brain where > the > > > image of the eye in the mirror is assembled. The eye.........is a > > > part of the wirlpool..............and so......is...the brain. > > > Consciousness..............is the river. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > I love this river-of-consciousness idea............everything does > appear to be moving....flowing.... > > > > > > > > but........ > > > > > > > > One wonders if this whirlpool vs river concept is only a more > subtle expression of the God and creation theory that > the " whirlpool " ......(once it accepts its own > autonomy)......imagines to be the hiearchial nature of " What-Is " ...... > > > > ....... " ....I am.....I am small.......I see other > things.......Something must have made all of this........What ever > made this must be prior to and bigger then what it made........etc... " > > > > Once the " I-am " is accepted as a given..... > > > > I wonder if anything that it intuits .....can hold water.......... > > > > > > > > > > (Al....I am not arguing with what you said........just playing in > the river...LOL.....:-) > > > > > > toombaru > > Hi toombaru, > > Yes, wirlpool and river and stuff are still 'stuff'. I recently > thought of 'no thing' as the Mother of all stuff. My mind cannot > possible grasp this 'no thing', but we could picture it as a > formless/formfull, sizeless/all-size, and timeless/timefull blob that > is not even a blob. :-) > > /AL Well............here we are..........holding hands.........looking over the )-: 0-: edge.................._______ | | | Al....................can youu see anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > .... > > > Well............here we are..........holding hands.........looking over the > > > > )-: 0-: > edge.................._______ > | > | > | > > > > Al....................can youu see anything? Peering..........anxiously......over the edge: Oouch! That........last.............step.............is....a......bitch! (words from Wayne Liquorman) )) /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.