Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > But surely there is at least a relative location in time and > space > > > > even without the ego? > > > > > > no can do anders, you are the only point of reference in the > > > universe. > > > > My body has a relative location in relation to Earth and the solar > system. > > Can you tell me please to what you oppose this concept? Do you mean how the concept of my location relates to other concepts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > But surely there is at least a relative location in time and > > space > > > > > even without the ego? > > > > > > > > no can do anders, you are the only point of reference in the > > > > universe. > > > > > > My body has a relative location in relation to Earth and the solar > > system. > > > > Can you tell me please to what you oppose this concept? > > Do you mean how the concept of my location relates to other concepts? The way you started this it looked like you were opposing a location through senses and ego to location without ego. am i right? (i can't express it accurately because precisely it is what i ask you to clarify) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > ... > > > > " Retracting extension " refers to experience not to " you " or > imagination. > > Imagination comes in when the attempt is made to describe " what it is " > > using the mind to create words and concepts to represent experience. > The > > pointer is an imaginative mind product. " You, " who thinks it > imagines, > > is an operative function of mind that has emerged as an identity > > claiming power to mentate and do, an ego. The operative function of > mind > > is, the identity is not. > > > > The experience of Anders is a an " instantaneous flow to active mingling > > of energy " when attention is in " communicating Anders. " A flow to > > " quiescence " occurs when attention is other than. These are > descriptions > > of continuous sensation flows. The sensation flow to mingling, the flow > > to quiescence underlies the concept " retracting extension. " > > > > Experience is. These two description of that are just levels of > > description. The sensation flows are a less " hardened " or more > > conceptually abstract descriptions that " opens up " the concept of > > " retracting extension " which is a less refined or crude description of > > the experience of communicating Anders. > > > > There is no time involved, Anders, just continuous differential > > sensation flows. The best that can be done in describing experiencing > > through this mind/body is more or less " continuous differential > > sensation flows. " Mind words and concepts like refined, crude, > ethereal, > > light, dark, vibrant, still, erotic, violent, etc. all can be used even > > though such words may or may not stimulate the sense of recognition of > > comparable concepts of sensation flows in the listener or stimulate the > > creation of such concepts. This is usually called " resonance " which > is a > > misnomer; experience is and descriptions of it are not. Posting is > > simply the exchange of imaginative mind products. Approximations are > > good enough for posting and conversation and enjoyable to create and > > exchange and discard. They are recyclable. > > > > Fear is a mind/body product created by mind/body identity, " ego " . The > > products are attachments to this or that and the fear arises when those > > attachments are " threatened, " more or less, with loss or extinction. > > > > Experience has no location, but ego does have " location in time and > > space " and ego is attached to its location or location in the mind/body > > and the conceptual world of its imagination. When the sensation flow of > > non-locatable experience occurs " location in time and space " ego's > > " ontology " begins to dissolve and ego generates the mental/physical > > components of fear because of the " impending " loss of a major > foundation > > of its existence ( " I don't know where I am, how can this be. " " Shit, > > what's happening to me, " or " I am going crazy, I am crazy. " or " Oh my > > God help me! " or the horrors of what some egos through on a bad acid or > > mescaline trip). Such conceptualities underlie the overwhelming fear of > > " loss, " " discontinuance " or " death, " all of which are concepts that do > > not exist except as reified conceptual entities. To avoid the fear of > > " loss, discontinuance and death, " in its " time and space " ego creates > > itself as eternal or immortal, erects places to go after death, makes > > death an honor, declares " I am God " or other self-trickery or just > keeps > > busy suppressing and repressing so there is no " time or space " in which > > feel the ever lurking fear. > > > > Lewis > > But surely there is at least a relative location in time and space > even without the ego? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There is no experience as such. The sensation can be described very crudely but simply as " flow " whether " walking or sitting or looking or doing anything " without sensations or discreteness of objects. The sensation flow is one of a mingling of energy, radiation, if you like that sort of concept. Solidity and discreteness is apparent to mind but not so in experience as it is.... Is it forgotten that babies can run in front of moving cars or cannot recognize " itself " in a mirror and many other phenomena indicating direct experience unmediated or interpreted by an ego using mind. The baby mind/body has not developed the concepts " car weighing a ton moving at 30 miles per hour " or " a relatively fragile body composed of soft tissue, bones, muscles and internal systems " or " the result of being run over by a car having such a body smashed and crushed by such a moving car " or " me, little Joey with red and freckles is smiling. " For babies and toddlers up to one and half to 2 or so, all is curious and all is one. This is never lost, just clouded over as " you " put it by thinking. But to conceptualize space and time as relative is virtual space again, thinking again about experience rather than experiencing as it is. A note on the apparent discreteness of objects: When ego is functioning the sensation flows are interrupted superficially and broken by conceptual thinking. Sensation flows so interrupted are not allowed to accumulate in the differential " eddies " and " tides " and " puddles " that they do to form the diversity of experience. Such interruptions lead to sensations of hardness and discreteness and separateness. It is simple. Sensations of discreteness occur because sensation flows are repeatedly interrupted and or dammed. If the sensation flows are not interrupted the sensations of hardness, discreteness and separation dissolve. This is common experience for those having undivided attention and complete absorption in an activity, whether it is sports, eating, prayer, sexual intercourse, or any other intensely focused activity where thinking is suspended and sensation itself (performance sensations, body sensation, mind/emotion sensations, erotic sensations, etc.) These experiences are temporary because the sensation flow changes and with it focus is lost return to ordinary ego meditated experience. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > " Retracting extension " refers to experience not to " you " or > > imagination. > > > Imagination comes in when the attempt is made to describe " what it is " > > > using the mind to create words and concepts to represent experience. > > The > > > pointer is an imaginative mind product. " You, " who thinks it > > imagines, > > > is an operative function of mind that has emerged as an identity > > > claiming power to mentate and do, an ego. The operative function of > > mind > > > is, the identity is not. > > > > > > The experience of Anders is a an " instantaneous flow to active > mingling > > > of energy " when attention is in " communicating Anders. " A flow to > > > " quiescence " occurs when attention is other than. These are > > descriptions > > > of continuous sensation flows. The sensation flow to mingling, the > flow > > > to quiescence underlies the concept " retracting extension. " > > > > > > Experience is. These two description of that are just levels of > > > description. The sensation flows are a less " hardened " or more > > > conceptually abstract descriptions that " opens up " the concept of > > > " retracting extension " which is a less refined or crude description of > > > the experience of communicating Anders. > > > > > > There is no time involved, Anders, just continuous differential > > > sensation flows. The best that can be done in describing experiencing > > > through this mind/body is more or less " continuous differential > > > sensation flows. " Mind words and concepts like refined, crude, > > ethereal, > > > light, dark, vibrant, still, erotic, violent, etc. all can be used > even > > > though such words may or may not stimulate the sense of recognition of > > > comparable concepts of sensation flows in the listener or > stimulate the > > > creation of such concepts. This is usually called " resonance " which > > is a > > > misnomer; experience is and descriptions of it are not. Posting is > > > simply the exchange of imaginative mind products. Approximations are > > > good enough for posting and conversation and enjoyable to create and > > > exchange and discard. They are recyclable. > > > > > > Fear is a mind/body product created by mind/body identity, " ego " . The > > > products are attachments to this or that and the fear arises when > those > > > attachments are " threatened, " more or less, with loss or extinction. > > > > > > Experience has no location, but ego does have " location in time and > > > space " and ego is attached to its location or location in the > mind/body > > > and the conceptual world of its imagination. When the sensation > flow of > > > non-locatable experience occurs " location in time and space " ego's > > > " ontology " begins to dissolve and ego generates the mental/physical > > > components of fear because of the " impending " loss of a major > > foundation > > > of its existence ( " I don't know where I am, how can this be. " " Shit, > > > what's happening to me, " or " I am going crazy, I am crazy. " or " Oh my > > > God help me! " or the horrors of what some egos through on a bad > acid or > > > mescaline trip). Such conceptualities underlie the overwhelming > fear of > > > " loss, " " discontinuance " or " death, " all of which are concepts that do > > > not exist except as reified conceptual entities. To avoid the fear of > > > " loss, discontinuance and death, " in its " time and space " ego creates > > > itself as eternal or immortal, erects places to go after death, makes > > > death an honor, declares " I am God " or other self-trickery or just > > keeps > > > busy suppressing and repressing so there is no " time or space " in > which > > > feel the ever lurking fear. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > But surely there is at least a relative location in time and space > > even without the ego? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > There is no experience as such. The sensation can be described very > crudely but simply as " flow " whether " walking or sitting or looking or > doing anything " without sensations or discreteness of objects. The > sensation flow is one of a mingling of energy, radiation, if you like > that sort of concept. Solidity and discreteness is apparent to mind but > not so in experience as it is.... > > Is it forgotten that babies can run in front of moving cars or cannot > recognize " itself " in a mirror and many other phenomena indicating > direct experience unmediated or interpreted by an ego using mind. The > baby mind/body has not developed the concepts " car weighing a ton moving > at 30 miles per hour " or " a relatively fragile body composed of soft > tissue, bones, muscles and internal systems " or " the result of being run > over by a car having such a body smashed and crushed by such a moving > car " or " me, little Joey with red and freckles is smiling. " For babies > and toddlers up to one and half to 2 or so, all is curious and all is one. > > This is never lost, just clouded over as " you " put it by thinking. But > to conceptualize space and time as relative is virtual space again, > thinking again about experience rather than experiencing as it is. > > A note on the apparent discreteness of objects: > > When ego is functioning the sensation flows are interrupted > superficially and broken by conceptual thinking. Sensation flows so > interrupted are not allowed to accumulate in the differential " eddies " > and " tides " and " puddles " that they do to form the diversity of > experience. Such interruptions lead to sensations of hardness and > discreteness and separateness. It is simple. Sensations of discreteness > occur because sensation flows are repeatedly interrupted and or dammed. > If the sensation flows are not interrupted the sensations of hardness, > discreteness and separation dissolve. > > This is common experience for those having undivided attention and > complete absorption in an activity, whether it is sports, eating, > prayer, sexual intercourse, or any other intensely focused activity > where thinking is suspended and sensation itself (performance > sensations, body sensation, mind/emotion sensations, erotic sensations, > etc.) These experiences are temporary because the sensation flow changes > and with it focus is lost return to ordinary ego meditated experience. > > > Lewis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Addition: This is common experience for those having undivided attention and complete absorption in an activity, whether it is sports, eating, prayer, sexual intercourse, or any other intensely focused activity where thinking is suspended and sensation itself is all that is experienced (performance sensations, body sensation, mind/emotion sensations, erotic sensations,etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > But surely there is at least a relative location in time > and > > > space > > > > > > even without the ego? > > > > > > > > > > no can do anders, you are the only point of reference in the > > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > My body has a relative location in relation to Earth and the > solar > > > system. > > > > > > Can you tell me please to what you oppose this concept? > > > > Do you mean how the concept of my location relates to other > concepts? > > The way you started this it looked like you were opposing a location > through senses and ego to location without ego. am i right? > (i can't express it accurately because precisely it is what i ask > you to clarify) I see the ego as the identification of a " me " with the process of thinking. But we can remove the " me " , at least hypothetically, from the thinking process. And thoughts producing the idea of location _is_ a location. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > .... > > > > But surely there is at least a relative location in time and space > > even without the ego? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > There is no experience as such. The sensation can be described very > crudely but simply as " flow " whether " walking or sitting or looking or > doing anything " without sensations or discreteness of objects. The > sensation flow is one of a mingling of energy, radiation, if you like > that sort of concept. Solidity and discreteness is apparent to mind but > not so in experience as it is.... > > Is it forgotten that babies can run in front of moving cars or cannot > recognize " itself " in a mirror and many other phenomena indicating > direct experience unmediated or interpreted by an ego using mind. The > baby mind/body has not developed the concepts " car weighing a ton moving > at 30 miles per hour " or " a relatively fragile body composed of soft > tissue, bones, muscles and internal systems " or " the result of being run > over by a car having such a body smashed and crushed by such a moving > car " or " me, little Joey with red and freckles is smiling. " For babies > and toddlers up to one and half to 2 or so, all is curious and all is one. > > This is never lost, just clouded over as " you " put it by thinking. But > to conceptualize space and time as relative is virtual space again, > thinking again about experience rather than experiencing as it is. > > A note on the apparent discreteness of objects: > > When ego is functioning the sensation flows are interrupted > superficially and broken by conceptual thinking. Sensation flows so > interrupted are not allowed to accumulate in the differential " eddies " > and " tides " and " puddles " that they do to form the diversity of > experience. Such interruptions lead to sensations of hardness and > discreteness and separateness. It is simple. Sensations of discreteness > occur because sensation flows are repeatedly interrupted and or dammed. > If the sensation flows are not interrupted the sensations of hardness, > discreteness and separation dissolve. > > This is common experience for those having undivided attention and > complete absorption in an activity, whether it is sports, eating, > prayer, sexual intercourse, or any other intensely focused activity > where thinking is suspended and sensation itself (performance > sensations, body sensation, mind/emotion sensations, erotic sensations, > etc.) These experiences are temporary because the sensation flow changes > and with it focus is lost return to ordinary ego meditated experience. > > > Lewis Excellent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > I see the ego as the identification of a " me " with the process of > > thinking. But we can remove the " me " , at least hypothetically, from > > the thinking process. And thoughts producing the idea of location > _is_ > > a location. > > I guess identification is your key word here. Identification always implies a final object, or at least a final relationship. The thinking mind is an expert in creating final objects, and one of these objects is the 'me'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > But surely there is at least a relative location in time > > and > > > > space > > > > > > > even without the ego? > > > > > > > > > > > > no can do anders, you are the only point of reference in the > > > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > > > My body has a relative location in relation to Earth and the > > solar > > > > system. > > > > > > > > Can you tell me please to what you oppose this concept? > > > > > > Do you mean how the concept of my location relates to other > > concepts? > > > > The way you started this it looked like you were opposing a location > > through senses and ego to location without ego. am i right? > > (i can't express it accurately because precisely it is what i ask > > you to clarify) > > I see the ego as the identification of a " me " with the process of > thinking. But we can remove the " me " , at least hypothetically, from > the thinking process. And thoughts producing the idea of location _is_ > a location. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Very Good. What is directly moves the mind's operative function (ie. imagination without ego mediation and attachement) and produces concepts that are labels and descriptions of sensation flows. This mind product _is_ (conceptual) location. such as 465 Fifth Avenue. This " location " concept is meaningless unless there are other numbered and named street locations relative to it. These relative locations are made up into a set. The set is made in to a " material " map that can be experienced in hand and memorized as a " virtual map. " The " virtual map and location " can never be the " material map and location " and the " material map and location " can never be the " experince of sensation flows " and the the " sensation flows " are never the experience of " what is, " that is indescribable. There is no getting to " what is. " It is. Always is. Experiencing concepts and experiencing sensations as they are is the crux of human problems. Concepts are illusions but they may be experienced as illusions without confusion or clouds if the mind is simply operating as is. They are not sensations, even though they may produce sensations. It does not matter in any way in non-ego mediated experience about the " veracity " or " reality " of " material locations, " " virtual locations, " " now, " sensation flows, " or even " what is. " Life is lived, experienced and there is no description adequate to it. Trying to describe it as we experience ruins it. So, BeDoBeDoBe......exchanging concepts..... Lewis 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.