Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 To deconstruct belief, we must first deconstruct authority and believability itself. Do we believe any proposition because we trust the credibility of the source (say, a guru.) Can a spoken add in any way to the veracity of a statement? Does truth, if voiced by a liar become a lie, and vise versa? It's obvious, that the veracity of a statement depends only on the statement itself, and that to trust in authority is self-deception. Why so? Because authority is just a deceitful transfer of power. Ultimately, we are the authority, we are the those who deems the proposition true, those who deems the speaker truthful. This is inescapable. To believe anything, we must trust that we have understood what was said. Uur level of understanding will always color what we hear. So all knowledge has to be regarded as provisional. All knowledge will shift to and fro with our level of understanding. There is no other authority. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > To deconstruct belief, we must first deconstruct > authority and believability itself. Do we believe > any proposition because we trust the credibility > of the source (say, a guru.) Can a spoken > add in any way to the veracity of a statement? > > Does truth, if voiced by a liar become a lie, and > vise versa? It's obvious, that the veracity of a > statement depends only on the statement itself, > and that to trust in authority is self-deception. > Why so? Because authority is just a deceitful > transfer of power. > > Ultimately, we are the authority, we are the > those who deems the proposition true, those > who deems the speaker truthful. This is > inescapable. To believe anything, we must > trust that we have understood what was said. > > Uur level of understanding will always color > what we hear. So all knowledge has to be > regarded as provisional. All knowledge will shift > to and fro with our level of understanding. > There is no other authority. > > Pete > > Just recognize the shallowness of thought and there will be no need to deconstruct anything. Maybe it can be fun to deconstruct concepts e t c, but for the mature spiritually inclined person that game is to be taken lightheartedly. For the serious spiritual devotee a radical and deep recognition of thinking as being fighting mental windmills must take place for any radical liberation to happen. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >To deconstruct belief, we must first deconstruct >authority and believability itself. What a nonsense. Authority has nothing to do with belief. Get rid of your fear of authority. Become an authority yourself. Believe nothing, use your intelligence. If you follow someone note that you have nothing to lose. Like a scientist, you have to follow the steps others have already taken, but watch your steps carefully. Note, they are always your own steps, not someone else's. You are the only one responsible. So, first of all something has to be learned: the art of trust. Without this one cannot even breathe. Deconstruction is the same as construction. Belief will cease by itself when you trust your intelligence. Good luck, really, thank you for your thoughts, as always they gave me food for thoughts :-) Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 - Stefan Nisargadatta Wednesday, January 26, 2005 5:01 PM Re: Authority and Believability Deconstruction is the same as construction. ------- Yes. Both believing in the existential reality of a construction,....which thus needs to be de-constructed. ----- Belief will cease by itself when you trust your intelligence. ----- Intelligence? Care to expand on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/25/05 2:09:06 PM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > - In Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > To deconstruct belief, we must first deconstruct > > > authority and believability itself. Do we believe > > > any proposition because we trust the credibility > > > of the source (say, a guru.) Can a speaker > > > add in any way to the veracity of a statement? > > > > > > Does truth, if voiced by a liar become a lie, and > > > vise versa? It's obvious, that the veracity of a > > > statement depends only on the statement itself, > > > and that to trust in authority is self-deception. > > > Why so? Because authority is just a deceitful > > > transfer of power. > > > > > > Ultimately, we are the authority, we are the > > > those who deems the proposition true, those > > > who deems the speaker truthful. This is > > > inescapable. To believe anything, we must > > > trust that we have understood what was said. > > > > > > Uor level of understanding will always color > > > what we hear. So all knowledge has to be > > > regarded as provisional. All knowledge will shift > > > to and fro with our level of understanding. > > > There is no other authority. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > Al: Just recognize the shallowness of thought and there will be no need to > > deconstruct anything. Maybe it can be fun to deconstruct concepts e t > > c, but for the mature spiritually inclined person that game is to be > > taken lightheartedly. For the serious spiritual devotee a radical and > > deep recognition of thinking as being fighting mental windmills must > > take place for any radical liberation to happen. > > > P: Al! Are you taking this medicine you are prescribing? Do you promise > you will believe so next month, do you believe it right now, or was this > just something you wrote on the spur of the moment? So do > you really grasp that all you think as true, is only so, based on your > level of understanding at the moment, and therefore subject to change? > I wrote this to be a bit provocative. But fighting mental windmills is a good illustration of how thought relates to itself. What would happen if one began to see one's thoughts as powerless? That's the experiment I am ponting to here. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/26/05 8:43:50 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > >I wrote this to be a bit provocative. But fighting mental windmills is > > a good illustration of how thought relates to itself. What would > > happen if one began to see one's thoughts as powerless? That's the > > >experiment I am ponting to here. > > > P: Al! What world do you live in? Thoughts are not powerless, they kill. > They kill thousands of people all over the world every day. Every time > someone pulls a trigger, a thought, moved the finger which pulled the > trigger. It's also your thoughts that trigger your fear. Learn to > control your thoughts, Al > > I would suggest that it is emotion that is fueling and directing thought and not the other way around. Or probably more correct: thought and emotion are one unified non-separable happening. I have found that my thinking is _always_ happening in a state of dissatisfaction with what is. Even so called happy thoughts are about moving away from what is. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/26/05 8:43:50 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > > > >I wrote this to be a bit provocative. But fighting mental > windmills is > > > a good illustration of how thought relates to itself. What would > > > happen if one began to see one's thoughts as powerless? That's the > > > >experiment I am ponting to here. > > > > > P: Al! What world do you live in? Thoughts are not powerless, they kill. > > They kill thousands of people all over the world every day. Every time > > someone pulls a trigger, a thought, moved the finger which pulled the > > trigger. It's also your thoughts that trigger your fear. Learn to > > control your thoughts, Al > > > > > I would suggest that it is emotion that is fueling and directing > thought and not the other way around. Or probably more correct: > thought and emotion are one unified non-separable happening. > > I have found that my thinking is _always_ happening in a state of > dissatisfaction with what is. Even so called happy thoughts are about > moving away from what is. > > /AL I forgot to mention what I believe thought to be: thinking is not causing anything to happen - thinking is a certain view - a fragmented view - of what is already happening by itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 Anders, Are you separate from thought ? When you are conscious of thought, who is conscious of thought ? Or is there only thought ? If there is only thought but no separate " me " then YOU ARE THOUGHT. And when you are thought then you will realize that you are lost, that you have no chance: Either thought or the ending of " you " . Then there is no longer an alternative. Today I found this statement on another list: " Thought has its place. The dominant position that thought took in the perception is creating problems " . Do you see it Anders ? You ARE thought, because you are the perception. The dominance of thought (as perception) is the dominance of Anders. If thought loses its dominance then Anders will lose his dominance. If you no lomger feel important then thoughts will no longer be important - it is one movement. Anders, there is no need to search for the beginning of thought, or the reasons why or when it starts. Thought has its place and therefore Anders has his place. It is just the question of dominance. The reason why you are searching for the beginning of thought, of what is triggering thought, is because you still believe that you are separate from thought, that you are the perceiver, that you are the doer who, when having found what triggers thought, then can do someting about the trigger. But: There is no doer, there is no perceiver. You ARE the perceived. You ARE thought. I wrote; " You still believe that you are separate from thought " . But that is not precise enough. Better would have been: Thought believes that it is separate from thought. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/26/05 8:43:50 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > > > >I wrote this to be a bit provocative. But fighting mental > windmills is > > > a good illustration of how thought relates to itself. What would > > > happen if one began to see one's thoughts as powerless? That's the > > > >experiment I am ponting to here. > > > > > P: Al! What world do you live in? Thoughts are not powerless, they kill. > > They kill thousands of people all over the world every day. Every time > > someone pulls a trigger, a thought, moved the finger which pulled the > > trigger. It's also your thoughts that trigger your fear. Learn to > > control your thoughts, Al > > > > > I would suggest that it is emotion that is fueling and directing > thought and not the other way around. Or probably more correct: > thought and emotion are one unified non-separable happening. > > I have found that my thinking is _always_ happening in a state of > dissatisfaction with what is. Even so called happy thoughts are about > moving away from what is. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Anders, > > Are you separate from thought ? When you are conscious of thought, > who is conscious of thought ? Or is there only thought ? If there is > only thought but no separate " me " then YOU ARE THOUGHT. And when you > are thought then you will realize that you are lost, that you have no > chance: Either thought or the ending of " you " . Then there is no > longer an alternative. > > Today I found this statement on another list: > " Thought has its place. The dominant position that thought took in > the perception is creating problems " . > > Do you see it Anders ? You ARE thought, because you are the > perception. The dominance of thought (as perception) is the dominance > of Anders. If thought loses its dominance then Anders will lose his > dominance. If you no lomger feel important then thoughts will no > longer be important - it is one movement. > > Anders, there is no need to search for the beginning of thought, or > the reasons why or when it starts. Thought has its place and > therefore Anders has his place. It is just the question of dominance. > > The reason why you are searching for the beginning of thought, of > what is triggering thought, is because you still believe that you are > separate from thought, that you are the perceiver, that you are the > doer who, when having found what triggers thought, then can do > someting about the trigger. > > But: > There is no doer, there is no perceiver. You ARE the perceived. You > ARE thought. > > I wrote; > " You still believe that you are separate from thought " . But that is > not precise enough. Better would have been: > > Thought believes that it is separate from thought. > > Werner Very, very good, Werner! Exactly as well as speech isn't separate from language. Language was there before and will be after our discourses. We entered subjectivity through the apprehension of language. In our discourses we don't really speak, we are being spoken by language. Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/26/05 11:15:04 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > A: I have found that my thinking is _always_ happening in a state of > > dissatisfaction with what is. Even so called happy thoughts are about > > moving away from what is. > > > P; Can there be dissatisfaction without comparison? Is not comparing > always a proccess of matching imagination and memory to the now. > Is not this thinking acting as the critic, the commentator of our life? > > When I write something I make comparisons with previous knowledge so that what I write makes some sense. Without that comparison there would be no or less structure. Maybe that comparison is needed, but I always feel a slight tension in this process of comparison. There is no real flow when I always compare what I write with my previous knowledge. This subtle feeling of conflict I call fear. Most people would not call it fear at all, but if we lower the threshold for sensing internal conflict in body and mind to a minimum, then this slight tension can be recognized as a root of unease, a seed of fear. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Anders, > > Are you separate from thought ? When you are conscious of thought, > who is conscious of thought ? Or is there only thought ? If there is > only thought but no separate " me " then YOU ARE THOUGHT. And when you > are thought then you will realize that you are lost, that you have no > chance: Either thought or the ending of " you " . Then there is no > longer an alternative. > > Today I found this statement on another list: > " Thought has its place. The dominant position that thought took in > the perception is creating problems " . > > Do you see it Anders ? You ARE thought, because you are the > perception. The dominance of thought (as perception) is the dominance > of Anders. If thought loses its dominance then Anders will lose his > dominance. If you no lomger feel important then thoughts will no > longer be important - it is one movement. > > Anders, there is no need to search for the beginning of thought, or > the reasons why or when it starts. Thought has its place and > therefore Anders has his place. It is just the question of dominance. > > The reason why you are searching for the beginning of thought, of > what is triggering thought, is because you still believe that you are > separate from thought, that you are the perceiver, that you are the > doer who, when having found what triggers thought, then can do > someting about the trigger. > > But: > There is no doer, there is no perceiver. You ARE the perceived. You > ARE thought. > > I wrote; > " You still believe that you are separate from thought " . But that is > not precise enough. Better would have been: > > Thought believes that it is separate from thought. > > Werner I can be aware of thoughs _and_ for example sensations in the body at the same time. There can be thinking going on about what is sensed as feelings, but there is both thoughts and feelings going on at the same time. Of course, in the end both thoughts and feelings are within the same field of awareness, yet we can by this clearly see that a person is not just thoughts. When Nisargadatta talked about that we are not the body, not thoughts, emotions e t c, what he was pointing to is I believe a state of pure beingness. If we really can _feel_ that we are the interconnected quantum soap itself and not a separate entity, then we begin to discover what Nis talked about perhaps. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 Hi Anders, What Niz did was just a more detailed explanation of Ramana's inquiry " Who am I " which should lead to the realization that there is no separate entity " I " . What I was telling you is just the other way round. By realizing that the perciever IS the perceived, that you ARE the perceived will also end the idea of a separate entity " I " . But the " I am the perceived " is much more practicable than that vichara thingy " who am I ? " . For example: Next time you have painful thoughts, what would help better: " I am not thought " or " I am thought " ? Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > Are you separate from thought ? When you are conscious of thought, > > who is conscious of thought ? Or is there only thought ? If there is > > only thought but no separate " me " then YOU ARE THOUGHT. And when you > > are thought then you will realize that you are lost, that you have no > > chance: Either thought or the ending of " you " . Then there is no > > longer an alternative. > > > > Today I found this statement on another list: > > " Thought has its place. The dominant position that thought took in > > the perception is creating problems " . > > > > Do you see it Anders ? You ARE thought, because you are the > > perception. The dominance of thought (as perception) is the dominance > > of Anders. If thought loses its dominance then Anders will lose his > > dominance. If you no lomger feel important then thoughts will no > > longer be important - it is one movement. > > > > Anders, there is no need to search for the beginning of thought, or > > the reasons why or when it starts. Thought has its place and > > therefore Anders has his place. It is just the question of dominance. > > > > The reason why you are searching for the beginning of thought, of > > what is triggering thought, is because you still believe that you are > > separate from thought, that you are the perceiver, that you are the > > doer who, when having found what triggers thought, then can do > > someting about the trigger. > > > > But: > > There is no doer, there is no perceiver. You ARE the perceived. You > > ARE thought. > > > > I wrote; > > " You still believe that you are separate from thought " . But that is > > not precise enough. Better would have been: > > > > Thought believes that it is separate from thought. > > > > Werner > > I can be aware of thoughs _and_ for example sensations in the body at > the same time. There can be thinking going on about what is sensed as > feelings, but there is both thoughts and feelings going on at the same > time. Of course, in the end both thoughts and feelings are within the > same field of awareness, yet we can by this clearly see that a person > is not just thoughts. > > When Nisargadatta talked about that we are not the body, not thoughts, > emotions e t c, what he was pointing to is I believe a state of pure > beingness. If we really can _feel_ that we are the interconnected > quantum soap itself and not a separate entity, then we begin to > discover what Nis talked about perhaps. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > What Niz did was just a more detailed explanation of Ramana's > inquiry " Who am I " which should lead to the realization that there is > no separate entity " I " . > > What I was telling you is just the other way round. By realizing that > the perciever IS the perceived, that you ARE the perceived will also > end the idea of a separate entity " I " . > > But the " I am the perceived " is much more practicable than that > vichara thingy " who am I ? " . > > For example: Next time you have painful thoughts, what would help > better: " I am not thought " or " I am thought " ? > > Werner I like the idea of " I am thought " better (at least for now). Also, along with that: " I am also feeling, perception, and awareness " . And even: " I am you " . /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 Yes, sure Anders, Because that hits our being much more directly and instantly than this inquiry " who am I " , which should lead to the realization that there is no entity but only " being " . Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > What Niz did was just a more detailed explanation of Ramana's > > inquiry " Who am I " which should lead to the realization that there is > > no separate entity " I " . > > > > What I was telling you is just the other way round. By realizing that > > the perciever IS the perceived, that you ARE the perceived will also > > end the idea of a separate entity " I " . > > > > But the " I am the perceived " is much more practicable than that > > vichara thingy " who am I ? " . > > > > For example: Next time you have painful thoughts, what would help > > better: " I am not thought " or " I am thought " ? > > > > Werner > > I like the idea of " I am thought " better (at least for now). Also, > along with that: " I am also feeling, perception, and awareness " . And > even: " I am you " . > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > What Niz did was just a more detailed explanation of Ramana's > inquiry " Who am I " which should lead to the realization that there is > no separate entity " I " . detailed, detailed, what do you mean by more detailed, Ramana spoke in detail for decades, what more is there to know about your own obvious simplest matter of fact. > > What I was telling you is just the other way round. By realizing that > the perciever IS the perceived, that you ARE the perceived will also > end the idea of a separate entity " I " . > > But the " I am the perceived " is much more practicable than that > vichara thingy " who am I ? " . > > For example: Next time you have painful thoughts, what would help > better: " I am not thought " or " I am thought " ? > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > Are you separate from thought ? When you are conscious of thought, > > > who is conscious of thought ? Or is there only thought ? If there > is > > > only thought but no separate " me " then YOU ARE THOUGHT. And when > you > > > are thought then you will realize that you are lost, that you > have no > > > chance: Either thought or the ending of " you " . Then there is no > > > longer an alternative. > > > > > > Today I found this statement on another list: > > > " Thought has its place. The dominant position that thought took in > > > the perception is creating problems " . > > > > > > Do you see it Anders ? You ARE thought, because you are the > > > perception. The dominance of thought (as perception) is the > dominance > > > of Anders. If thought loses its dominance then Anders will lose > his > > > dominance. If you no lomger feel important then thoughts will no > > > longer be important - it is one movement. > > > > > > Anders, there is no need to search for the beginning of thought, > or > > > the reasons why or when it starts. Thought has its place and > > > therefore Anders has his place. It is just the question of > dominance. > > > > > > The reason why you are searching for the beginning of thought, of > > > what is triggering thought, is because you still believe that you > are > > > separate from thought, that you are the perceiver, that you are > the > > > doer who, when having found what triggers thought, then can do > > > someting about the trigger. > > > > > > But: > > > There is no doer, there is no perceiver. You ARE the perceived. > You > > > ARE thought. > > > > > > I wrote; > > > " You still believe that you are separate from thought " . But that > is > > > not precise enough. Better would have been: > > > > > > Thought believes that it is separate from thought. > > > > > > Werner > > > > I can be aware of thoughs _and_ for example sensations in the body > at > > the same time. There can be thinking going on about what is sensed > as > > feelings, but there is both thoughts and feelings going on at the > same > > time. Of course, in the end both thoughts and feelings are within > the > > same field of awareness, yet we can by this clearly see that a > person > > is not just thoughts. > > > > When Nisargadatta talked about that we are not the body, not > thoughts, > > emotions e t c, what he was pointing to is I believe a state of pure > > beingness. If we really can _feel_ that we are the interconnected > > quantum soap itself and not a separate entity, then we begin to > > discover what Nis talked about perhaps. > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 Yes Eric, Was just a minor misunderstanding, maybe because I wasn't precise enough. What I meant was, instead of just telling his listeners to do self- inquiry Niz explained a little bit the neti, neti. Werner Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > What Niz did was just a more detailed explanation of Ramana's > > inquiry " Who am I " which should lead to the realization that there is > > no separate entity " I " . > > detailed, detailed, what do you mean by more detailed, Ramana spoke in > detail for decades, what more is there to know about your own obvious > simplest matter of fact. > > > > > What I was telling you is just the other way round. By realizing that > > the perciever IS the perceived, that you ARE the perceived will also > > end the idea of a separate entity " I " . > > > > But the " I am the perceived " is much more practicable than that > > vichara thingy " who am I ? " . > > > > For example: Next time you have painful thoughts, what would help > > better: " I am not thought " or " I am thought " ? > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > Are you separate from thought ? When you are conscious of thought, > > > > who is conscious of thought ? Or is there only thought ? If there > > is > > > > only thought but no separate " me " then YOU ARE THOUGHT. And when > > you > > > > are thought then you will realize that you are lost, that you > > have no > > > > chance: Either thought or the ending of " you " . Then there is no > > > > longer an alternative. > > > > > > > > Today I found this statement on another list: > > > > " Thought has its place. The dominant position that thought took in > > > > the perception is creating problems " . > > > > > > > > Do you see it Anders ? You ARE thought, because you are the > > > > perception. The dominance of thought (as perception) is the > > dominance > > > > of Anders. If thought loses its dominance then Anders will lose > > his > > > > dominance. If you no lomger feel important then thoughts will no > > > > longer be important - it is one movement. > > > > > > > > Anders, there is no need to search for the beginning of thought, > > or > > > > the reasons why or when it starts. Thought has its place and > > > > therefore Anders has his place. It is just the question of > > dominance. > > > > > > > > The reason why you are searching for the beginning of thought, of > > > > what is triggering thought, is because you still believe that you > > are > > > > separate from thought, that you are the perceiver, that you are > > the > > > > doer who, when having found what triggers thought, then can do > > > > someting about the trigger. > > > > > > > > But: > > > > There is no doer, there is no perceiver. You ARE the perceived. > > You > > > > ARE thought. > > > > > > > > I wrote; > > > > " You still believe that you are separate from thought " . But that > > is > > > > not precise enough. Better would have been: > > > > > > > > Thought believes that it is separate from thought. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > I can be aware of thoughs _and_ for example sensations in the body > > at > > > the same time. There can be thinking going on about what is sensed > > as > > > feelings, but there is both thoughts and feelings going on at the > > same > > > time. Of course, in the end both thoughts and feelings are within > > the > > > same field of awareness, yet we can by this clearly see that a > > person > > > is not just thoughts. > > > > > > When Nisargadatta talked about that we are not the body, not > > thoughts, > > > emotions e t c, what he was pointing to is I believe a state of pure > > > beingness. If we really can _feel_ that we are the interconnected > > > quantum soap itself and not a separate entity, then we begin to > > > discover what Nis talked about perhaps. > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/27/05 9:18:01 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > A: When I write something I make comparisons with previous knowledge so > > that what I write makes some sense. Without that comparison there > > would be no or less structure. Maybe that comparison is needed, > > > P: No! it's not needed. As you say it creates conflict. I don't compare > what I write to anything I wrote, or know. It just writes itself, and I > let > it stand like that. Try it and see how that feels. > What you write here encourages me to accept the possibility of at least lessening the conflict in me. It must be a great relief to be able to write or say something without judging oneself internally all the time. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/27/05 9:18:01 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > > > A: When I write something I make comparisons with previous > knowledge so > > > that what I write makes some sense. Without that comparison there > > > would be no or less structure. Maybe that comparison is needed, > > > > > P: No! it's not needed. As you say it creates conflict. I don't > compare > > what I write to anything I wrote, or know. It just writes > itself, and I > > let > > it stand like that. Try it and see how that feels. > > > > What you write here encourages me to accept the possibility of at > least lessening the conflict in me. It must be a great relief to be > able to write or say something without judging oneself internally all > the time. > > /AL It can be a great relief to allow those judgements to come and go as well. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 1/27/05 9:18:01 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > > > > > > A: When I write something I make comparisons with previous > > knowledge so > > > > that what I write makes some sense. Without that comparison > there > > > > would be no or less structure. Maybe that comparison is needed, > > > > > > > P: No! it's not needed. As you say it creates conflict. I > don't > > compare > > > what I write to anything I wrote, or know. It just writes > > itself, and I > > > let > > > it stand like that. Try it and see how that feels. > > > > > > > What you write here encourages me to accept the possibility of at > > least lessening the conflict in me. It must be a great relief to be > > able to write or say something without judging oneself internally > all > > the time. > > > > /AL > > It can be a great relief to allow those judgements to come and go as > well. > > Joe Yes! If one _feels_ good in body and mind, then the play of judgements can be enjoyed, but when there is suffering there is suffering, and to be honest, a very, very deep suffering in many people. The slightest thought about this suffering can bring tears to one's eyes. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/27/05 9:18:01 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > A: When I write something I make comparisons with previous > > > knowledge so > > > > > that what I write makes some sense. Without that comparison > > there > > > > > would be no or less structure. Maybe that comparison is needed, > > > > > > > > > P: No! it's not needed. As you say it creates conflict. I > > don't > > > compare > > > > what I write to anything I wrote, or know. It just writes > > > itself, and I > > > > let > > > > it stand like that. Try it and see how that feels. > > > > > > > > > > What you write here encourages me to accept the possibility of at > > > least lessening the conflict in me. It must be a great relief to be > > > able to write or say something without judging oneself internally > > all > > > the time. > > > > > > /AL > > > > It can be a great relief to allow those judgements to come and go as > > well. > > > > Joe > > Yes! If one _feels_ good in body and mind, then the play of judgements > can be enjoyed, but when there is suffering there is suffering, and to > be honest, a very, very deep suffering in many people. The slightest > thought about this suffering can bring tears to one's eyes. > > /AL So, is the suffering there without thinking about it? If so, you'd have to establish it as something real existing outside of your awareness now. The only way to do that is to think about it. And if there is great suffering outside of this awareness here, is it something that needs to be changed? Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/27/05 9:18:01 AM, anders_lindman > writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A: When I write something I make comparisons with previous > > > > knowledge so > > > > > > that what I write makes some sense. Without that comparison > > > there > > > > > > would be no or less structure. Maybe that comparison is > needed, > > > > > > > > > > > P: No! it's not needed. As you say it creates conflict. I > > > don't > > > > compare > > > > > what I write to anything I wrote, or know. It just > writes > > > > itself, and I > > > > > let > > > > > it stand like that. Try it and see how that feels. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you write here encourages me to accept the possibility of > at > > > > least lessening the conflict in me. It must be a great relief > to be > > > > able to write or say something without judging oneself > internally > > > all > > > > the time. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > It can be a great relief to allow those judgements to come and go > as > > > well. > > > > > > Joe > > > > Yes! If one _feels_ good in body and mind, then the play of > judgements > > can be enjoyed, but when there is suffering there is suffering, and > to > > be honest, a very, very deep suffering in many people. The slightest > > thought about this suffering can bring tears to one's eyes. > > > > /AL > > So, is the suffering there without thinking about it? If so, you'd > have to establish it as something real existing outside of your > awareness now. The only way to do that is to think about it. > > And if there is great suffering outside of this awareness here, is it > something that needs to be changed? > > Joe Conflict is felt in every cell in my body and in the very structure of how these cells interact. This conflict has a depth of billion years of evolution. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: me: >Deconstruction is the same as construction. you: >Yes. >Both believing in the existential reality of a construction,....which >thus needs to be de-constructed. Who is in the position to deconstruct it? All beliefs are simply lack of intelligence. Really there is nothing to be deconstructed. Being is what it is: being. >Intelligence? > >Care to expand on that. What we just wrote above is an attempt of intelligence opposed to mere belief. (Intelligence = the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience). But to avoid misunderstandings I add: there is even no intelligence needed to realize reality... but it may be helpful. Greetings S. 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.