Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Many people cannot go beyond thinking for they are trapped in a treadmill of personal control. What is it that people are trying to control? The future. This attempt to control the future is nothing but an illusion of non-existence. Real choice implies that there is a bifurcation where one branch is chosen while other branches are rejected. Let's look at choice. If there is no real choice possible, personal control is an illusion. To understand what a choice is, we need to go beyond intellectual analysis since such endeavor leads to a never ending search. Real choice can only happen now. It cannot happen in past or future. Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual analysis. Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe choice, but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Anders, You wrote: > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual analysis. Utmost importance for whom ? And what is the goal of all that " utmost importance " ?. How long will you manage to go on with that " observation of choice " ? One minute, 10 minutes, one hour, one day or more ? I promise that you, Anders, have forgotten this " utmost important " thing in one hour because a dozend of new " very important " insights were plaguing your poor mind like flees a dog. Therefore throw all this utmost important things into the carbage can and after a while you will realize that the only really important thing is the carbage can. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Many people cannot go beyond thinking for they are trapped in a > treadmill of personal control. What is it that people are trying to > control? The future. This attempt to control the future is nothing but > an illusion of non-existence. Real choice implies that there is a > bifurcation where one branch is chosen while other branches are rejected. > > Let's look at choice. If there is no real choice possible, personal > control is an illusion. To understand what a choice is, we need to go > beyond intellectual analysis since such endeavor leads to a never > ending search. > > Real choice can only happen now. It cannot happen in past or future. > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual analysis. > > Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with > choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe choice, > but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Anders, > > You wrote: > > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is > > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. > > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual > analysis. > > Utmost importance for whom ? And what is the goal of all that " utmost > importance " ?. How long will you manage to go on with > that " observation of choice " ? One minute, 10 minutes, one hour, one > day or more ? > > I promise that you, Anders, have forgotten this " utmost important " > thing in one hour because a dozend of new " very important " insights > were plaguing your poor mind like flees a dog. > > Therefore throw all this utmost important things into the carbage can > and after a while you will realize that the only really important > thing is the carbage can. > > Werner It is important to recognize the mechanisms of choice for all people because it is one direct way out of suffering. The goal is the present moment. Ordinary, we think of goals as something to be reached in the future. Understanding choice is this other kind of goal. We must realize that to understand choice is more important than any choice itself. It is important to recognize the unimportance of choice. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Many people cannot go beyond thinking for they are trapped in a > > treadmill of personal control. What is it that people are trying to > > control? The future. This attempt to control the future is nothing > but > > an illusion of non-existence. Real choice implies that there is a > > bifurcation where one branch is chosen while other branches are > rejected. > > > > Let's look at choice. If there is no real choice possible, personal > > control is an illusion. To understand what a choice is, we need to > go > > beyond intellectual analysis since such endeavor leads to a never > > ending search. > > > > Real choice can only happen now. It cannot happen in past or future. > > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is > > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. > > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual > analysis. > > > > Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with > > choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe > choice, > > but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Anders, > > You wrote: > > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is > > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. > > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual > analysis. > > Utmost importance for whom ? And what is the goal of all that " utmost > importance " ?. How long will you manage to go on with > that " observation of choice " ? One minute, 10 minutes, one hour, one > day or more ? > > I promise that you, Anders, have forgotten this " utmost important " > thing in one hour because a dozend of new " very important " insights > were plaguing your poor mind like flees a dog. > > Therefore throw all this utmost important things into the carbage can > and after a while you will realize that the only really important > thing is the carbage can. Please continue your discourse on the garbage can. Focussing upon the box, instead of the contents, is a skill not to be taken lightly, and the lightest way one generally " takes it " , is saying - in all honesty - " But, I do! I do focus upon the box, and let me tell you why I do... X said, and I believe such and such; Y said, and I believe such and such... " However, concentrating upon the box - even now as this is being written, even now as this is being read - reveals, or not, moveable walls, and the walls are made of thoughts, content, meaning. So, given the above, sans thought, please continue your discourse on the garbage can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Hi Anders, I haven't uttered a word about what you wrote, it is all ok. I stumbled accross the " importance " of it. The main thing I wanted to bring to your attention was the garbage can. Maybe you feel that can is a sacrilege compared with your terrific important insights but the day will come when your are fed up with all those " utmost imortant " insights and you will see them as a burden. It is similar to falling in love with the smell of one's farts, one doesn't want to let them go. Maybe this a relict of the Freudian anal phase - but a fart is just a fart. And it is simlar with one's thoughts, one falls in love with them and doesn't want to let them go. This one could call the menatl phase ) Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Anders, > > > > You wrote: > > > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is > > > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. > > > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual > > analysis. > > > > Utmost importance for whom ? And what is the goal of all that " utmost > > importance " ?. How long will you manage to go on with > > that " observation of choice " ? One minute, 10 minutes, one hour, one > > day or more ? > > > > I promise that you, Anders, have forgotten this " utmost important " > > thing in one hour because a dozend of new " very important " insights > > were plaguing your poor mind like flees a dog. > > > > Therefore throw all this utmost important things into the carbage can > > and after a while you will realize that the only really important > > thing is the carbage can. > > > > Werner > > It is important to recognize the mechanisms of choice for all people > because it is one direct way out of suffering. The goal is the present > moment. Ordinary, we think of goals as something to be reached in the > future. Understanding choice is this other kind of goal. We must > realize that to understand choice is more important than any choice > itself. It is important to recognize the unimportance of choice. > > /AL > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Many people cannot go beyond thinking for they are trapped in a > > > treadmill of personal control. What is it that people are trying to > > > control? The future. This attempt to control the future is nothing > > but > > > an illusion of non-existence. Real choice implies that there is a > > > bifurcation where one branch is chosen while other branches are > > rejected. > > > > > > Let's look at choice. If there is no real choice possible, personal > > > control is an illusion. To understand what a choice is, we need to > > go > > > beyond intellectual analysis since such endeavor leads to a never > > > ending search. > > > > > > Real choice can only happen now. It cannot happen in past or future. > > > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is > > > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. > > > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual > > analysis. > > > > > > Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with > > > choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe > > choice, > > > but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Hi frmready, The box is just a start. My own thoughts becoming more and more their own garbage can. I no longer care about the box. Werner Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Anders, > > > > You wrote: > > > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is > > > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or > future. > > > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual > > analysis. > > > > > > Utmost importance for whom ? And what is the goal of all that > " utmost > > importance " ?. How long will you manage to go on with > > that " observation of choice " ? One minute, 10 minutes, one hour, one > > day or more ? > > > > I promise that you, Anders, have forgotten this " utmost important " > > thing in one hour because a dozend of new " very important " insights > > were plaguing your poor mind like flees a dog. > > > > Therefore throw all this utmost important things into the carbage > can > > and after a while you will realize that the only really important > > thing is the carbage can. > > Please continue your discourse on the garbage can. > Focussing upon the box, instead of the contents, is a skill not to be > taken lightly, and the lightest way one generally " takes it " , is > saying - in all honesty - " But, I do! I do focus upon the box, and > let me tell you why I do... X said, and I believe such and such; Y > said, and I believe such and such... " > > However, concentrating upon the box - even now as this is being > written, even now as this is being read - reveals, or not, moveable > walls, and the walls are made of thoughts, content, meaning. > > So, given the above, sans thought, please continue your discourse on > the garbage can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > I haven't uttered a word about what you wrote, it is all ok. I > stumbled accross the " importance " of it. > > The main thing I wanted to bring to your attention was the garbage > can. Maybe you feel that can is a sacrilege compared with your > terrific important insights but the day will come when your are fed > up with all those " utmost imortant " insights and you will see them as > a burden. > > It is similar to falling in love with the smell of one's farts, one > doesn't want to let them go. Maybe this a relict of the Freudian anal > phase - but a fart is just a fart. And it is simlar with one's > thoughts, one falls in love with them and doesn't want to let them > go. This one could call the menatl phase ) > > Werner The reason that one tolerates one's own farts more than farts from other people is that the human body uses the smell as a feedback loop for regulating the processes in the body, such as the digestive process. The smell of a fart from another person only interferes with that regulatory feedback loop. :-) I thought you meant that the garbage can and the garbage were the same thing. Of what use is a garbage can without garbage? All choices are sprung from a state of discontent. Without that discontent there would not be any choice-making going on. As long as there are choices made there will be discontent. It's really that simple. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice > is > > > > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or > future. > > > > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual > > > analysis. > > > > > > Utmost importance for whom ? And what is the goal of all > that " utmost > > > importance " ?. How long will you manage to go on with > > > that " observation of choice " ? One minute, 10 minutes, one hour, > one > > > day or more ? > > > > > > I promise that you, Anders, have forgotten this " utmost important " > > > thing in one hour because a dozend of new " very important " > insights > > > were plaguing your poor mind like flees a dog. > > > > > > Therefore throw all this utmost important things into the carbage > can > > > and after a while you will realize that the only really important > > > thing is the carbage can. > > > > > > Werner > > > > It is important to recognize the mechanisms of choice for all people > > because it is one direct way out of suffering. The goal is the > present > > moment. Ordinary, we think of goals as something to be reached in > the > > future. Understanding choice is this other kind of goal. We must > > realize that to understand choice is more important than any choice > > itself. It is important to recognize the unimportance of choice. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Many people cannot go beyond thinking for they are trapped in a > > > > treadmill of personal control. What is it that people are > trying to > > > > control? The future. This attempt to control the future is > nothing > > > but > > > > an illusion of non-existence. Real choice implies that there is > a > > > > bifurcation where one branch is chosen while other branches are > > > rejected. > > > > > > > > Let's look at choice. If there is no real choice possible, > personal > > > > control is an illusion. To understand what a choice is, we need > to > > > go > > > > beyond intellectual analysis since such endeavor leads to a > never > > > > ending search. > > > > > > > > Real choice can only happen now. It cannot happen in past or > future. > > > > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice > is > > > > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or > future. > > > > Any time we go into past or future we are back into > intellectual > > > analysis. > > > > > > > > Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do > with > > > > choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe > > > choice, > > > > but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with >choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe choice, >but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. Hi Anders... I think we had this argument already, but let me repeat: A " now " cannot contain time nor space. This means: from within " now " no observation is possible (choiceless or not) because there is neither time nor space for an observer (or for the act of observing). It can be said that " now " does not have any objective reality. It is nothing more than another idea, a thought, happening in the past. What do you think? What would happen if one drops the idea of " now " completely? Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > >Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with > >choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe > choice, > >but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. > > Hi Anders... > > I think we had this argument already, but let me repeat: > > A " now " cannot contain time nor space. This means: from within " now " > no observation is possible (choiceless or not) because there is > neither time nor space for an observer (or for the act of observing). > It can be said that " now " does not have any objective reality. It is > nothing more than another idea, a thought, happening in the past. > > What do you think? What would happen if one drops the idea of " now " > completely? > > Greetings > S. Without the idea of the " now " my mind would maybe wander away into its own self-created future. I don't know. What I do know is that choice of any kind, _including_ the choice of what to think and do with a " now " always goes along with a state of discontent. There cannot be any choice without discontent. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 In a message dated 1/20/05 12:15:51 PM, dan330033 writes: P: Clear and well said, Dan! > > There is this which isn't a concept, thought, happening of > the past. > > It doesn't matter whether I thought I could > name it 'now,' 'god,' 'truth,' > 'who I am,' or 'Spot.' Names won't give what it is, > and thoughts about that issue, once named, > just keep one involved with one's own mentation processes. > > If I am involved in a relationship with my own mentation, > thinking I'm closing in on truth, > I am trying to substitute knowledge for " what is, " images > for " what is. " > > So, what is this beyond a relationship with one's own production > of images, words, feelings? > > If you are clear on this, then what becomes of time, space, > choice, and the observer? There is no concern about > observing the choice to choose, or anything else. > All such notions are gone. > > This is known first-hand, not a matter of reading something > in a book or on-line, hearing something from a teacher, > getting the results that are approved of by > a philosophy or in a religion. > > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > >Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with > >choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe > choice, > >but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. > > Hi Anders... > > I think we had this argument already, but let me repeat: > > A " now " cannot contain time nor space. This means: from within " now " > no observation is possible (choiceless or not) because there is > neither time nor space for an observer (or for the act of observing). > It can be said that " now " does not have any objective reality. It is > nothing more than another idea, a thought, happening in the past. > > What do you think? What would happen if one drops the idea of " now " > completely? > > Greetings > S. Greetings. There is this which isn't a concept, thought, happening of the past. It doesn't matter whether I thought I could name it 'now,' 'god,' 'truth,' 'who I am,' or 'Spot.' Names won't give what it is, and thoughts about that issue, once named, just keep one involved with one's own mentation processes. If I am involved in a relationship with my own mentation, thinking I'm closing in on truth, I am trying to substitute knowledge for " what is, " images for " what is. " So, what is this beyond a relationship with one's own production of images, words, feelings? If you are clear on this, then what becomes of time, space, choice, and the observer? There is no concern about observing the choice to choose, or anything else. All such notions are gone. This is known first-hand, not a matter of reading something in a book or on-line, hearing something from a teacher, getting the results that are approved of by a philosophy or in a religion. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > >Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with > > >choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe > > choice, > > >but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. > > > > Hi Anders... > > > > I think we had this argument already, but let me repeat: > > > > A " now " cannot contain time nor space. This means: from within " now " > > no observation is possible (choiceless or not) because there is > > neither time nor space for an observer (or for the act of observing). > > It can be said that " now " does not have any objective reality. It is > > nothing more than another idea, a thought, happening in the past. > > > > What do you think? What would happen if one drops the idea of " now " > > completely? > > > > Greetings > > S. > > Without the idea of the " now " my mind would maybe wander away into its > own self-created future. I don't know. What I do know is that choice > of any kind, _including_ the choice of what to think and do with a > " now " always goes along with a state of discontent. There cannot be > any choice without discontent. > > /AL You could just as well say, " there cannot be any discontent unless you perceive a choice. " But our circular definitions don't get us anywhere. Either it all drops off, including the dropping off -- or one invests in the cyclical activity of one's mentation. That investment for the sake of a fictional center that experiences validation seems to be there if the cycle can be spun with seeming continuity. It's here, now - that there's a break in the continuity of mentation, perception, feeling, memory -- right here that truth is alive. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > >Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do > with > > > >choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe > > > choice, > > > >but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. > > > > > > Hi Anders... > > > > > > I think we had this argument already, but let me repeat: > > > > > > A " now " cannot contain time nor space. This means: from > within " now " > > > no observation is possible (choiceless or not) because there is > > > neither time nor space for an observer (or for the act of > observing). > > > It can be said that " now " does not have any objective reality. > It is > > > nothing more than another idea, a thought, happening in the past. > > > > > > What do you think? What would happen if one drops the idea > of " now " > > > completely? > > > > > > Greetings > > > S. > > > > Without the idea of the " now " my mind would maybe wander away into > its > > own self-created future. I don't know. What I do know is that > choice > > of any kind, _including_ the choice of what to think and do with a > > " now " always goes along with a state of discontent. There cannot be > > any choice without discontent. > > > > /AL > > You could just as well say, " there cannot be any discontent > unless you perceive a choice. " > > But our circular definitions don't get us anywhere. > > Either it all drops off, including the dropping off -- > or one invests in the cyclical activity of one's > mentation. > > That investment for the sake of a fictional center > that experiences validation seems to be there if the cycle can > be spun with seeming continuity. > > It's here, now - that there's a break in the continuity of > mentation, perception, feeling, memory -- > right here that truth is alive. > > -- Dan Yes. Perception of choice equals perception of time, which equals illusionary perception. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Is there a thought in the absence of a learned language? If there was no word available for what was happening in the moment, can there be a thought about that happening? If there was no word available, can there be an issue with that happening? If there was no word available, can even the happening in the moment........be cognized as a happening, as an experience? If there was no word available, would there be anything like the moment of now? If there was no word available, can even the absence of the word be cognized? If there was no word available, ofcourse there woud still be the Doooo Beeee Doooo.. Doooo Beeeee Dooooo. - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:49 PM Beyond thinking Many people cannot go beyond thinking for they are trapped in a treadmill of personal control. What is it that people are trying to control? The future. This attempt to control the future is nothing but an illusion of non-existence. Real choice implies that there is a bifurcation where one branch is chosen while other branches are rejected. Let's look at choice. If there is no real choice possible, personal control is an illusion. To understand what a choice is, we need to go beyond intellectual analysis since such endeavor leads to a never ending search. Real choice can only happen now. It cannot happen in past or future. Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual analysis. Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe choice, but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. /AL ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > Is there a thought in the absence of a learned language? > > If there was no word available for what was happening in the moment, can there be a thought about that happening? > > If there was no word available, can there be an issue with that happening? > > If there was no word available, can even the happening in the moment........be cognized as a happening, as an experience? > > > If there was no word available, would there be anything like the moment of now? > > If there was no word available, can even the absence of the word be cognized? > > > If there was no word available, ofcourse there woud still be the Doooo Beeee Doooo.. Doooo Beeeee Dooooo. > If, if, if, if, if ;-) > > > > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:49 PM > Beyond thinking > > > > Many people cannot go beyond thinking for they are trapped in a > treadmill of personal control. What is it that people are trying to > control? The future. This attempt to control the future is nothing but > an illusion of non-existence. Real choice implies that there is a > bifurcation where one branch is chosen while other branches are rejected. > > Let's look at choice. If there is no real choice possible, personal > control is an illusion. To understand what a choice is, we need to go > beyond intellectual analysis since such endeavor leads to a never > ending search. > > Real choice can only happen now. It cannot happen in past or future. > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual analysis. > > Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with > choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe choice, > but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. > > /AL > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > -- ---------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: >There is this which isn't a concept, thought, happening of >the past. >It doesn't matter whether I thought I could >name it 'now,' 'god,' 'truth,' >'who I am,' or 'Spot.' Names won't give what it is, >and thoughts about that issue, once named, >just keep one involved with one's own mentation processes. >If I am involved in a relationship with my own mentation, >thinking I'm closing in on truth, >I am trying to substitute knowledge for " what is, " images >for " what is. " >So, what is this beyond a relationship with one's own production >of images, words, feelings? >If you are clear on this, then what becomes of time, space, >choice, and the observer? There is no concern about >observing the choice to choose, or anything else. >All such notions are gone. >This is known first-hand, not a matter of reading something >in a book or on-line, hearing something from a teacher, >getting the results that are approved of by >a philosophy or in a religion. Wow, you said it very well. Only... are you aware that you have made the statement: that something " is " ... and that it can be " known " ... ? There! The dilemma has already started! Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: >Is there a thought in the absence of a learned language? Has been discussed to death. Fruitless. Can a cat think? Miauuu... >If there was no word available for what was happening in the moment, can there be a thought about that happening? There is no word available. Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > Is there a thought in the absence of a learned language? > > If there was no word available for what was happening in the moment, can there be a thought about that happening? > > If there was no word available, can there be an issue with that happening? > > If there was no word available, can even the happening in the moment........be cognized as a happening, as an experience? > > > If there was no word available, would there be anything like the moment of now? > > If there was no word available, can even the absence of the word be cognized? > > > If there was no word available, ofcourse there woud still be the Doooo Beeee Doooo.. Doooo Beeeee Dooooo. When we think about a friend, for example, there is little or no words. Instead there are images, emotions remembered situations and places e t c. There is only a small part of thinking that is words, like the tip of an iceberg. The context in which all thoughts happen is seldom noticed even though it is much vaster than thoughts in the form of spoken language. /AL > > > > > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:49 PM > Beyond thinking > > > > Many people cannot go beyond thinking for they are trapped in a > treadmill of personal control. What is it that people are trying to > control? The future. This attempt to control the future is nothing but > an illusion of non-existence. Real choice implies that there is a > bifurcation where one branch is chosen while other branches are rejected. > > Let's look at choice. If there is no real choice possible, personal > control is an illusion. To understand what a choice is, we need to go > beyond intellectual analysis since such endeavor leads to a never > ending search. > > Real choice can only happen now. It cannot happen in past or future. > Therefore it is of utmost importance that observation of choice is > related to the living moment and not to ideas about past or future. > Any time we go into past or future we are back into intellectual analysis. > > Thus, the main thrust for finding out what choice is, has to do with > choiceless observation in the now. We cannot choose to observe choice, > but we can observe the choice of choosing to observe choice. > > /AL > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > There! The dilemma has already started! > > Greetings > S. Only if one gives words the power to start a dilemma. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > > There! The dilemma has already started! > > > > Greetings > > S. > > Only if one gives words the power to start > a dilemma. > > -- Dan My friend, my intention was not to critisize you. We are in this dilemma... and not because we have given any power to anything. Has somebody asked you if you want to be born before you were born? Has somebody asked you if you want to learn language before you started to speak? Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > There! The dilemma has already started! > > > > > > Greetings > > > S. > > > > Only if one gives words the power to start > > a dilemma. > > > > -- Dan > > My friend, > > my intention was not to critisize you. > > We are in this dilemma... and not because we have given any power to > anything. Has somebody asked you if you want to be born before you > were born? Has somebody asked you if you want to learn language before > you started to speak? As the `ghost' of Arunachala said: SEE, ...if you are born Now ! SEE, ... " who " knows the language . or, even `Worse' : ....is there any Language in, ...DEEP Sleep? > > Greetings > S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 What do words and language exist as? Words and learned language 'exist' as metaphors for life. They have no literal meanings other than that. They are used to create stories and some times some of the words serve to un-do stories. We believe we " want " . We believe we can " have " . Is it true? Is there a we to want something, or is that a story about lack? Is there a we to have something, or is that a story about illusory possession? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > What do words and language exist as? > > > Words and learned language 'exist' > as metaphors for life. They have no > literal meanings other than that. > They are used to create stories and some > times some of the words serve to un-do > stories. > > We believe we " want " . > > We believe we can " have " . > > Is it true? > > Is there a we to want something, > or is that a story about lack? > > Is there a we to have something, > or is that a story about illusory > possession? Good point, Freyja. Maybe life without the story of lack is complete. Then we don't need to _add_ something to our life, we just need to remove the story of discontent. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 carolina112900 wrote: > > What do words and language exist as? > > > Words and learned language 'exist' > as metaphors for life. They have no > literal meanings other than that. > They are used to create stories and some > times some of the words serve to un-do > stories. And can stories be seen as an in between an insert used for whatever purpose required in the moment, a story to be told for this or that? And can stories appear as the real so that life comes to be bet upon them in order to go on in that way they we do with some stories leading north, south, east, and west and in all the ranging directions in between, vertically, horizontally, and obliquely as is required so that in every way exploration can be had known and unknown as it is done? And as we gaze upon a mythical earth to see how the stories are followed by experiencing the variegated trails of human appearances as they move to and fro across the ground and in the air and sea, their doings, their lives in their duration, the remains, can it be said that a story followed as real is a veil worn tightly about the face with the appearance going in a way that the story does not? Without a story is there a way to go? > > We believe we " want " . > > We believe we can " have " . > > Is it true? Is it untrue, is it both, can it be neither or all of these or other than these? > Is there a we to want something, > or is that a story about lack? > Is there a we to have something, > or is that a story about illusory > possession? Are the appearances to be doubted, to be handled and pressed to see what exudes? How can they be seen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > > What do words and language exist as? > > > > > > Words and learned language 'exist' > > as metaphors for life. They have no > > literal meanings other than that. > > They are used to create stories and some > > times some of the words serve to un-do > > stories. > > > > We believe we " want " . > > > > We believe we can " have " . > > > > Is it true? > > > > Is there a we to want something, > > or is that a story about lack? > > > > Is there a we to have something, > > or is that a story about illusory > > possession? > > Good point, Freyja. Maybe life without the story of lack is complete. > Then we don't need to _add_ something to our life, we just need to > remove the story of discontent. > I don't know about removing, but, yes, AL, it's about.... " The Plan " I think I want something. I think I can have something. Life is what happens while we're busy making plans and all that jazz. When does anything ever really fully go according to plans? Then there's the " contingency plan " LOL and the contingency contingency plan So many times it ends up boiling down to " aaah, let's just wing it " and seat-o-the-pants. Yet, at the same time, I am not saying never to follow tried and true formulas ever. Ever notice how sometimes, the very first time you try something you never did before, you ace it? For instance, throwing a dart at a dart board. The first time I did it, I was focused on it but not thinking about it. I hit the bullseye. Then when I started thinking about how I could duplicate that again, and what was it I did before to get it that I should do again... I didn't get the bullseye. Or maybe it is just beginner's luck? I don't know if that is what it is. When things are going according to " plan " , we're happy, The minute they go off-course, we get whiny. Watching all the funny pratfalls resulting from the best laid plans gone awry makes for a pretty good diversion, though, eh? ;-) ~freyja > /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.