Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > When reading years ago that question of K and his following > > statement, I too was startled because I never before have questioned > > it. Yet in the meantime I made friends with the idea that only a > > fragmented mind which is not whole could have a structure of parts > > which are not conscious and which is called the unconscious (by > > analysts which too suffer from the same fragmentation). > > > > And his statement that the analyser is the analysed did attract lots > > of psychogists to K's meetings and discussions. > > > > Werner > > Yes, dreams for example, may come from the unconscious. The funny > thing is that K said that when your mind is whole there will be no > need for dreams. Ramesh Balsekar didn't like what K said about not > having dreams. :-) I think that K didn't remember his dreams and they weren't important to him. I've known lots of people who say they don't have dreams, but if they start attending to their waking sensations closely, they start to pick up some fragments of dreams. Research in laboratories over and over again, shows that the brain waves associated with dreaming occur for everyone, without exception, during REM phases of sleep. I think it's an important function of the human brain, and is appropriate. I don't think that anyone deals with everything while they are awake, nor should they. I think Krishnamurti was mixing his metaphors, i.e., the metaphor of being awake and no longer in illusion (dream), with his brain functions. By the way, Krishnamurti was also known for the statement " they are operating on my brain, they are operating on my brain, " at times when he had some kind of unusual sensations in his head that were painful and upsetting to him. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > When reading years ago that question of K and his following > > > statement, I too was startled because I never before have > questioned > > > it. Yet in the meantime I made friends with the idea that only a > > > fragmented mind which is not whole could have a structure of > parts > > > which are not conscious and which is called the unconscious (by > > > analysts which too suffer from the same fragmentation). > > > > > > And his statement that the analyser is the analysed did attract > lots > > > of psychogists to K's meetings and discussions. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Yes, dreams for example, may come from the unconscious. The funny > > thing is that K said that when your mind is whole there will be no > > need for dreams. Ramesh Balsekar didn't like what K said about not > > having dreams. :-) > > I think that K didn't remember his dreams and they weren't > important to him. I've known lots of people who say > they don't have dreams, but if they start attending to > their waking sensations closely, they start to pick up > some fragments of dreams. > > Research in laboratories over and over again, shows that > the brain waves associated with dreaming occur for > everyone, without exception, during REM phases > of sleep. I think it's an important > function of the human brain, and is appropriate. I don't > think that anyone deals with everything while they are > awake, nor should they. > > I think Krishnamurti was mixing his metaphors, i.e., the > metaphor of being awake and no longer in illusion (dream), > with his brain functions. > > By the way, Krishnamurti was also known for the statement > " they are operating on my brain, they are operating on my > brain, " at times when he had some kind of unusual sensations > in his head that were painful and upsetting to him. > > -- Dan I wonder what the laboratories would find when examining Ken Wilber's brain during one of those times he is aware during sleep. Not only aware during the dream state, but aware during the deep dreamless sleep state! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > When reading years ago that question of K and his following > > > > statement, I too was startled because I never before have > > questioned > > > > it. Yet in the meantime I made friends with the idea that only a > > > > fragmented mind which is not whole could have a structure of > > parts > > > > which are not conscious and which is called the unconscious (by > > > > analysts which too suffer from the same fragmentation). > > > > > > > > And his statement that the analyser is the analysed did attract > > lots > > > > of psychogists to K's meetings and discussions. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Yes, dreams for example, may come from the unconscious. The funny > > > thing is that K said that when your mind is whole there will be no > > > need for dreams. Ramesh Balsekar didn't like what K said about not > > > having dreams. :-) > > > > I think that K didn't remember his dreams and they weren't > > important to him. I've known lots of people who say > > they don't have dreams, but if they start attending to > > their waking sensations closely, they start to pick up > > some fragments of dreams. > > > > Research in laboratories over and over again, shows that > > the brain waves associated with dreaming occur for > > everyone, without exception, during REM phases > > of sleep. I think it's an important > > function of the human brain, and is appropriate. I don't > > think that anyone deals with everything while they are > > awake, nor should they. > > > > I think Krishnamurti was mixing his metaphors, i.e., the > > metaphor of being awake and no longer in illusion (dream), > > with his brain functions. > > > > By the way, Krishnamurti was also known for the statement > > " they are operating on my brain, they are operating on my > > brain, " at times when he had some kind of unusual sensations > > in his head that were painful and upsetting to him. > > > > -- Dan > > I wonder what the laboratories would find when examining Ken Wilber's > brain during one of those times he is aware during sleep. Not only > aware during the dream state, but aware during the deep dreamless > sleep state! :-) You just split awareness into Ken's awareness and your awareness. It ain't like that. The awareness during deep, dreamless sleep doesn't belong to anyone. It's not an individual awareness. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > > > When reading years ago that question of K and his following > > > > > statement, I too was startled because I never before have > > > questioned > > > > > it. Yet in the meantime I made friends with the idea that > only a > > > > > fragmented mind which is not whole could have a structure of > > > parts > > > > > which are not conscious and which is called the unconscious > (by > > > > > analysts which too suffer from the same fragmentation). > > > > > > > > > > And his statement that the analyser is the analysed did > attract > > > lots > > > > > of psychogists to K's meetings and discussions. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Yes, dreams for example, may come from the unconscious. The > funny > > > > thing is that K said that when your mind is whole there will > be no > > > > need for dreams. Ramesh Balsekar didn't like what K said about > not > > > > having dreams. :-) > > > > > > I think that K didn't remember his dreams and they weren't > > > important to him. I've known lots of people who say > > > they don't have dreams, but if they start attending to > > > their waking sensations closely, they start to pick up > > > some fragments of dreams. > > > > > > Research in laboratories over and over again, shows that > > > the brain waves associated with dreaming occur for > > > everyone, without exception, during REM phases > > > of sleep. I think it's an important > > > function of the human brain, and is appropriate. I don't > > > think that anyone deals with everything while they are > > > awake, nor should they. > > > > > > I think Krishnamurti was mixing his metaphors, i.e., the > > > metaphor of being awake and no longer in illusion (dream), > > > with his brain functions. > > > > > > By the way, Krishnamurti was also known for the statement > > > " they are operating on my brain, they are operating on my > > > brain, " at times when he had some kind of unusual sensations > > > in his head that were painful and upsetting to him. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > I wonder what the laboratories would find when examining Ken > Wilber's > > brain during one of those times he is aware during sleep. Not only > > aware during the dream state, but aware during the deep dreamless > > sleep state! :-) > > You just split awareness into Ken's awareness and your > awareness. > > It ain't like that. > > The awareness during deep, dreamless sleep doesn't belong > to anyone. > > It's not an individual awareness. > > -- Dan Yet I find it fashinating to hear about how Ken Wilber sometimes could be aware during the whole sleep cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > When reading years ago that question of K and his following > > > statement, I too was startled because I never before have > questioned > > > it. Yet in the meantime I made friends with the idea that only a > > > fragmented mind which is not whole could have a structure of > parts > > > which are not conscious and which is called the unconscious (by > > > analysts which too suffer from the same fragmentation). > > > > > > And his statement that the analyser is the analysed did attract > lots > > > of psychogists to K's meetings and discussions. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Yes, dreams for example, may come from the unconscious. The funny > > thing is that K said that when your mind is whole there will be no > > need for dreams. Ramesh Balsekar didn't like what K said about not > > having dreams. :-) > > I think that K didn't remember his dreams and they weren't > important to him. I've known lots of people who say > they don't have dreams, but if they start attending to > their waking sensations closely, they start to pick up > some fragments of dreams. > > Research in laboratories over and over again, shows that > the brain waves associated with dreaming occur for > everyone, without exception, during REM phases > of sleep. I think it's an important > function of the human brain, and is appropriate. I don't > think that anyone deals with everything while they are > awake, nor should they. > > I think Krishnamurti was mixing his metaphors, i.e., the > metaphor of being awake and no longer in illusion (dream), > with his brain functions. > > By the way, Krishnamurti was also known for the statement > " they are operating on my brain, they are operating on my > brain, " at times when he had some kind of unusual sensations > in his head that were painful and upsetting to him. > > -- Dan What is an illusion to you, Dan? How do you define it? What does it consist of? How is it dispelled? Please give me some examples of illusions you have or dispelled or that still hold you in their grip? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 _____ Lewis Burgess [lbb10] Friday, January 07, 2005 12:40 PM Nisargadatta Re: Re: The doors to the Krishnamurti Outhouse/AL What is an illusion to you, Dan? Chocolate. How do you define it? Why define it? What does it consist of? Taste. How is it dispelled? By chewing, swallowing, etc. Please give me some examples of illusions you have or dispelled or that still hold you in their grip? Grip is an Illusion. Illusion is Reality. :-). Either way, have a nice day! :-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > I wonder what the laboratories would find when examining Ken > > Wilber's > > > brain during one of those times he is aware during sleep. Not only > > > aware during the dream state, but aware during the deep dreamless > > > sleep state! :-) > > > > You just split awareness into Ken's awareness and your > > awareness. > > > > It ain't like that. > > > > The awareness during deep, dreamless sleep doesn't belong > > to anyone. > > > > It's not an individual awareness. > > > > -- Dan > > Yet I find it fashinating to hear about how Ken Wilber sometimes could > be aware during the whole sleep cycle. " Yet " -- you always have a " yet " ... There is no " yet " to this. And it's absurd to think that the one aware during deep sleep is an individual human identity. Earlier you say that ultimately there is one being. So, apparently, you separate the ultimate from the relative. There is no such separation. Therefore, there isn't even one being. In other words, if it's one, it's not a numerical one. It has no outside, hence no inside, and thus no center. If Ken Wilber is aware during deep sleep, so is Anders Lindman -- because the relativity that apparently makes them separable beings is itself the nondual, the not-two, the undivided. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Harsha wrote: > _____ > > Lewis Burgess [lbb10] > Friday, January 07, 2005 12:40 PM > Nisargadatta > Re: Re: The doors to the Krishnamurti Outhouse/AL > > > > > What is an illusion to you, Dan? > > > > Chocolate. > > > > How do you define it? > > > > Why define it? > > > > What does it consist of? > > > > Taste. > > > > How is it dispelled? > > > > By chewing, swallowing, etc. > Please give me some examples of illusions you have or dispelled or that > still hold you in their grip? > > > > > > Grip is an Illusion. Illusion is Reality. :-). > > > > Either way, have a nice day! :-). > I like chocolate too. Never think about but it tastes good going down. And onward. Sweet! Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > I wonder what the laboratories would find when examining Ken > > > Wilber's > > > > brain during one of those times he is aware during sleep. Not > only > > > > aware during the dream state, but aware during the deep > dreamless > > > > sleep state! :-) > > > > > > You just split awareness into Ken's awareness and your > > > awareness. > > > > > > It ain't like that. > > > > > > The awareness during deep, dreamless sleep doesn't belong > > > to anyone. > > > > > > It's not an individual awareness. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > Yet I find it fashinating to hear about how Ken Wilber sometimes > could > > be aware during the whole sleep cycle. > > " Yet " -- you always have a " yet " ... > > There is no " yet " to this. > > And it's absurd to think that the one aware > during deep sleep is an individual human identity. > > Earlier you say that ultimately there is one being. > > So, apparently, you separate the ultimate from the relative. > > There is no such separation. > > Therefore, there isn't even one being. > > In other words, if it's one, it's not a numerical one. > > It has no outside, hence no inside, and thus no center. > > If Ken Wilber is aware during deep sleep, so is Anders > Lindman -- because the relativity that apparently > makes them separable beings is itself the nondual, > the not-two, the undivided. > > -- Dan That's true. There _must_ be only One being. Or not-two being. The one without a second. How strange! At least, everything I am aware of must also be a part of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > That's true. There _must_ be only One being. Or not-two being. The one > without a second. How strange! At least, everything I am aware of must > also be a part of me. Yes, and, in fact, there is no you apart from what is being observed. Hence, there is no actual distance between a you that observes, and that which is observed, ever. The ideas of placement, location, distance, subject separate from object, all involve description, but not the actuality of " what is. " Because description depends on illusion, once you are clear on what isn't illusion, you'll never take a description for an actuality again. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > That's true. There _must_ be only One being. Or not-two being. The > one > > without a second. How strange! At least, everything I am aware of > must > > also be a part of me. > > Yes, and, in fact, there is no you apart from what is being > observed. > > Hence, there is no actual distance between a you that observes, > and that which is observed, ever. > > The ideas of placement, location, distance, subject > separate from object, all involve > description, but not the actuality of " what is. " > > Because description depends on illusion, once you are clear > on what isn't illusion, you'll never take a description > for an actuality again. > > -- Dan Material stuff is not 'solid' at all. It's more like everything in phenomenality is like pure information. That I find comforting. We live in a huge 'computer program' or information matrix. Scientists have shown that on the sub-atomic level, there is no solidity, no hard and separate particles. The universe is a big hologram! It's all an illusion, yet being it a persistent one, as Einstein said. /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.