Guest guest Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: <snip> > > > Knowing on a conceptual level is not enough. But it's not > > > difficult to _feel_ the truth of this conflict. Are you in > > > every situation relaxed and peaceful? Yes, or no? > > > > > > One can be relaxed and peaceful (or not) only in the present > > moment as it unfolds. This unfolding is a process of change - > > so there is no way (nor need) to be sure that one will be > > relaxed and peaceful in _every_ future situation even if he has > > been relaxed and peaceful in _every_ past situation. > > > > The " conflict " appears when the present moment is frozen > > (through conceptual thinking) and compared with a past memory, > > an imagined future, any sort of absolute etc. As the moment is > > being frozen there appears friction (thus the feeling of > > conflict) between the continuously unfolding present in which > > the mind continues to exist and the stopped frame on which the > > awareness is focused. > > > > Only the unfolding present moment carries the elusive element > > of change and when one experiences the moment without freezing > > it he experiences no conflict. > > > > Tomina > > Yes, but the ordinary human mind cannot see this, for it _is_ > this freezing of a conceptual world picture called " me " and its > inherent unavoidable conflict with itself. > > /AL It seems that every mind is in a unique state and the experience of such conflict, if it occurs, is a result of conditioning rather than being " inherent " and " unavoidable " . The mind has the potential to use rational linear thought and memory (beta brainwaves) but it is not limited to it (and these are not the first to be developed either). Focusing on the state of conflict one is aware of, or on a desired alternative (an absolute) is a mind-game - it is neither inherent, nor unavoidable. Tomina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Knowing on a conceptual level is not enough. But it's not > > > > difficult to _feel_ the truth of this conflict. Are you in > > > > every situation relaxed and peaceful? Yes, or no? > > > > > > > > > One can be relaxed and peaceful (or not) only in the present > > > moment as it unfolds. This unfolding is a process of change - > > > so there is no way (nor need) to be sure that one will be > > > relaxed and peaceful in _every_ future situation even if he has > > > been relaxed and peaceful in _every_ past situation. > > > > > > The " conflict " appears when the present moment is frozen > > > (through conceptual thinking) and compared with a past memory, > > > an imagined future, any sort of absolute etc. As the moment is > > > being frozen there appears friction (thus the feeling of > > > conflict) between the continuously unfolding present in which > > > the mind continues to exist and the stopped frame on which the > > > awareness is focused. > > > > > > Only the unfolding present moment carries the elusive element > > > of change and when one experiences the moment without freezing > > > it he experiences no conflict. > > > > > > Tomina > > > > Yes, but the ordinary human mind cannot see this, for it _is_ > > this freezing of a conceptual world picture called " me " and its > > inherent unavoidable conflict with itself. > > > > /AL > > > It seems that every mind is in a unique state and the experience of > such conflict, if it occurs, is a result of conditioning rather > than being " inherent " and " unavoidable " . The mind has the potential > to use rational linear thought and memory (beta brainwaves) but it > is not limited to it (and these are not the first to be developed > either). Focusing on the state of conflict one is aware of, or on a > desired alternative (an absolute) is a mind-game - it is neither > inherent, nor unavoidable. > > Tomina I am not ruling out the possibility of avoiding conflict as many sages point at, and that's why I said 'ordinary' human mind... /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 [........] > > > > > > > > [.....] > > > > > > Yeah, a _thinking_ human being, that is. Have you investigated the > > > nature of thought? Do you believe thought is important? Why is > > thought > > > important? > > > > Quite possibly, ...thinking, thoughts and minds have created the > > companies, computers and software that is letting you communicate > > with these many people, ...among many other things. > > > > Is it `important' or not ? > > > > We _think_ thought is creating these things, but is it really? Creative Insights, spontaneous illuminations might come from ...No Mind. However, things like companies, enterprises, countries, societies require ...careful and systematic planning ! Same goes for writing `research paper', designing, testing and marketing a product, studying or formulating extensive scientific equations. Origin, an insight, an innovative can rise from No-Mind but to develop it into a really `useful' product requires careful, systematic, `thoughtful' planning and execution. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Sun or HP require thinking, mind and planning. So do the products like Windows, Macintosh, Unix, Linux or papers, theories or concepts like ...HTML, HTTP, Groups or Internet Protocols... >Maybe > one could see everything as the same unfolding web of life, a > completely automatic process, but an extremely advanced process in > which thought is just one aspect within this web. We can call it > complexity unfolding. Every atom is helt together in this web, this > Indra's Net, the unifying quantum soup of existence. It is not thought > that holds the atoms together in order to create a rock, a flower or a > human brain. It is not thought holding thought together, and perhaps > not thought that is the 'cause' of creating companies and computers. > > Eckhart Tolle said: " Thinking is not the only state for humans, and > not the highest. " I am very curious to find out if Tolle is fooling > himself and trying to fool others, or if what he says really is the > truth. At least I know from personal experience that my thinking is > very cumbersome and often in conflict with " the rest of the world " . > > I also listen to other 'sages' like Vernon Howard, and what he said is > very similar to what Tolle says. Catherine Ingram, another sage, talks > about being comfortable within one's own skin. I can feel they are on > to something. I am desperate to know that state myself. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Can't you feel the _constant_ fear in you; that everlasting > > defensive > > > " me " in the form of a solidifies separate self around an extremely > > > vulnerable core? Why do you think people get angry? Get annoyed? > > > Irritated? They have an extremely sensitive separate self to > > protect. > > > That's why there is irritation when having to stand in line at the > > > supermarket. Can't you see the inner conflict? The constant inner > > > conflict. > > > > No, sorry. Sometimes I do feel fear and insecurity, but it's not > > constant. I know you think deep-down we always feel it, but I don't > > agree. > > > > I agree that often we don't feel our own inner conflict, but that's > only because it is temporarily being obscured by some activity. That's > also often the reason why people seek distraction from their own mind > all the time. The mind in this way tries to hide and deny its own > inner conflict. Try to sit alone in front of the TV for a couple of > hours without having the TV on. Then you will begin to recognize the > unease in you. See, here is where we disagree. You assume some fundamental existing thing that's always " underneath " . I say, if it's not there, it's not there. Thought simply posits it later, gives it existence, and says it was there. And then thought wants to be free of this imaginary past conflict. Conflict is now or never. Even if there's a sense of unease, that doesn't have to be conflict. Conflict IMO would arise as a result of wanting to be rid of what's there. > The removing of the constant seeking of distraction from the mind's > own inner conflict is the beginning of peace. What we call desire is > just a lesser form of conflict that we poor human beings take as being > the only happiness we have. Virtually everyone is carrying around a > mental fear/desire map that guides their life. Each map is limited and > rigid, and the interaction between people is never truly harmonious. There's more harmony than nonharmony. Turn off the TV and Radio for a while. ;-) Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > [........] > > > > > > > > > > > > [.....] > > > > > > > > Yeah, a _thinking_ human being, that is. Have you investigated > the > > > > nature of thought? Do you believe thought is important? Why is > > > thought > > > > important? > > > > > > Quite possibly, ...thinking, thoughts and minds have created the > > > companies, computers and software that is letting you communicate > > > with these many people, ...among many other things. > > > > > > Is it `important' or not ? > > > > > > > We _think_ thought is creating these things, but is it really? > > > Creative Insights, spontaneous illuminations might come from ...No > Mind. > > However, things like companies, enterprises, countries, societies > require ...careful and systematic planning ! > > Same goes for writing `research paper', designing, testing and > marketing a product, studying or formulating extensive scientific > equations. > > Origin, an insight, an innovative can rise from No-Mind but to > develop it into a really `useful' product requires careful, > systematic, `thoughtful' planning and execution. > > Companies like Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Sun or HP require thinking, > mind and planning. So do the products like Windows, Macintosh, Unix, > Linux or papers, theories or concepts like ...HTML, HTTP, > Groups or Internet Protocols... I see no fundamental difference between nature producing a tree, an animal or an operating system like Linux. It is evolution who is the " doer " and humans are parts in this wholeness. A sudden insight can in an instant produce something more clever than what would take months to develop by the process of ordinary thinking. And as you say, an insight can be followed by a process of thinking and planning. We can see the insight _and_ the planning process as one event, one happening. The human minds cuts up happenings in bits and pieces, but reality is a web, an interrelated wholeness where no part is unrelated to what happens in the whole web. > > > > > >Maybe > > one could see everything as the same unfolding web of life, a > > completely automatic process, but an extremely advanced process in > > which thought is just one aspect within this web. We can call it > > complexity unfolding. Every atom is helt together in this web, this > > Indra's Net, the unifying quantum soup of existence. It is not > thought > > that holds the atoms together in order to create a rock, a flower > or a > > human brain. It is not thought holding thought together, and perhaps > > not thought that is the 'cause' of creating companies and computers. > > > > Eckhart Tolle said: " Thinking is not the only state for humans, and > > not the highest. " I am very curious to find out if Tolle is fooling > > himself and trying to fool others, or if what he says really is the > > truth. At least I know from personal experience that my thinking is > > very cumbersome and often in conflict with " the rest of the world " . > > > > I also listen to other 'sages' like Vernon Howard, and what he said > is > > very similar to what Tolle says. Catherine Ingram, another sage, > talks > > about being comfortable within one's own skin. I can feel they are > on > > to something. I am desperate to know that state myself. > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Can't you feel the _constant_ fear in you; that everlasting > > > defensive > > > > " me " in the form of a solidifies separate self around an > extremely > > > > vulnerable core? Why do you think people get angry? Get > annoyed? > > > > Irritated? They have an extremely sensitive separate self to > > > protect. > > > > That's why there is irritation when having to stand in line at > the > > > > supermarket. Can't you see the inner conflict? The constant > inner > > > > conflict. > > > > > > No, sorry. Sometimes I do feel fear and insecurity, but it's not > > > constant. I know you think deep-down we always feel it, but I > don't > > > agree. > > > > > > > I agree that often we don't feel our own inner conflict, but that's > > only because it is temporarily being obscured by some activity. > That's > > also often the reason why people seek distraction from their own > mind > > all the time. The mind in this way tries to hide and deny its own > > inner conflict. Try to sit alone in front of the TV for a couple of > > hours without having the TV on. Then you will begin to recognize > the > > unease in you. > > See, here is where we disagree. You assume some fundamental existing > thing that's always " underneath " . I say, if it's not there, it's not > there. Thought simply posits it later, gives it existence, and says > it was there. And then thought wants to be free of this imaginary > past conflict. Conflict is now or never. Even if there's a sense of > unease, that doesn't have to be conflict. Conflict IMO would arise > as a result of wanting to be rid of what's there. I have experienced moments of peace, and I compare these experiences with my everyday state of being. I believe the natural state, the state humanity is moving towards is that state of peace. > > > > The removing of the constant seeking of distraction from the mind's > > own inner conflict is the beginning of peace. What we call desire > is > > just a lesser form of conflict that we poor human beings take as > being > > the only happiness we have. Virtually everyone is carrying around a > > mental fear/desire map that guides their life. Each map is limited > and > > rigid, and the interaction between people is never truly > harmonious. > > There's more harmony than nonharmony. Turn off the TV and Radio for > a while. ;-) > > Joe Hopefully harmony is increasing in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > Knowing on a conceptual level is not enough. But it's not > > > > > difficult to _feel_ the truth of this conflict. Are you in > > > > > every situation relaxed and peaceful? Yes, or no? > > > > > > > > > > > > One can be relaxed and peaceful (or not) only in the present > > > > moment as it unfolds. This unfolding is a process of change - > > > > so there is no way (nor need) to be sure that one will be > > > > relaxed and peaceful in _every_ future situation even if he > > > > has been relaxed and peaceful in _every_ past situation. > > > > > > > > The " conflict " appears when the present moment is frozen > > > > (through conceptual thinking) and compared with a past > > > > memory, an imagined future, any sort of absolute etc. As the > > > > moment is being frozen there appears friction (thus the > > > > feeling of conflict) between the continuously unfolding > > > > present in which the mind continues to exist and the stopped > > > > frame on which the awareness is focused. > > > > > > > > Only the unfolding present moment carries the elusive > > > > element of change and when one experiences the moment > > > > without freezing it he experiences no conflict. > > > > > > > > Tomina > > > > > > Yes, but the ordinary human mind cannot see this, for it _is_ > > > this freezing of a conceptual world picture called " me " and > > > its inherent unavoidable conflict with itself. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > It seems that every mind is in a unique state and the experience > > of such conflict, if it occurs, is a result of conditioning > > rather than being " inherent " and " unavoidable " . The mind has the > > potential to use rational linear thought and memory (beta > > brainwaves) but it is not limited to it (and these are not the > > first to be developed either). Focusing on the state of conflict > > one is aware of, or on a desired alternative (an absolute) is a > > mind-game - it is neither inherent, nor unavoidable. > > > > Tomina > > I am not ruling out the possibility of avoiding conflict as many > sages point at, and that's why I said 'ordinary' human mind... > > /AL What is an " ordinary human mind " ? Can one experience anything else but his own mind and if not then what is the aim of using assumptions about what is " ordinary " , " inherent " , " unavoidable " and so on? My hat off to the sages but when it comes to postulates, on which one's own mind is building its own model of reality, personal experiences should be the only thing that counts (the mind is self-referential, after all). Adopting someone else's postulates without checking them against one's own experiences leads to an incomplete, distorted and self-contradictory model of reality - i.e., to a state where conflict is present. It doesn't really matter whether we adopt (without checking) an idea coming from a sage or from someone else - the result is the same. Tomina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Knowing on a conceptual level is not enough. But it's not > > > > > > difficult to _feel_ the truth of this conflict. Are you in > > > > > > every situation relaxed and peaceful? Yes, or no? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can be relaxed and peaceful (or not) only in the present > > > > > moment as it unfolds. This unfolding is a process of change - > > > > > so there is no way (nor need) to be sure that one will be > > > > > relaxed and peaceful in _every_ future situation even if he > > > > > has been relaxed and peaceful in _every_ past situation. > > > > > > > > > > The " conflict " appears when the present moment is frozen > > > > > (through conceptual thinking) and compared with a past > > > > > memory, an imagined future, any sort of absolute etc. As the > > > > > moment is being frozen there appears friction (thus the > > > > > feeling of conflict) between the continuously unfolding > > > > > present in which the mind continues to exist and the stopped > > > > > frame on which the awareness is focused. > > > > > > > > > > Only the unfolding present moment carries the elusive > > > > > element of change and when one experiences the moment > > > > > without freezing it he experiences no conflict. > > > > > > > > > > Tomina > > > > > > > > Yes, but the ordinary human mind cannot see this, for it _is_ > > > > this freezing of a conceptual world picture called " me " and > > > > its inherent unavoidable conflict with itself. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > It seems that every mind is in a unique state and the experience > > > of such conflict, if it occurs, is a result of conditioning > > > rather than being " inherent " and " unavoidable " . The mind has the > > > potential to use rational linear thought and memory (beta > > > brainwaves) but it is not limited to it (and these are not the > > > first to be developed either). Focusing on the state of conflict > > > one is aware of, or on a desired alternative (an absolute) is a > > > mind-game - it is neither inherent, nor unavoidable. > > > > > > Tomina > > > > I am not ruling out the possibility of avoiding conflict as many > > sages point at, and that's why I said 'ordinary' human mind... > > > > /AL > > > What is an " ordinary human mind " ? > Can one experience anything else but his own mind and if not then > what is the aim of using assumptions about what is " ordinary " , > " inherent " , " unavoidable " and so on? > > My hat off to the sages but when it comes to postulates, on which > one's own mind is building its own model of reality, personal > experiences should be the only thing that counts (the mind is > self-referential, after all). Adopting someone else's postulates > without checking them against one's own experiences leads to an > incomplete, distorted and self-contradictory model of reality - > i.e., to a state where conflict is present. It doesn't really > matter whether we adopt (without checking) an idea coming from > a sage or from someone else - the result is the same. > > Tomina I have experienced moments of peace, and compared to those moments, my 'ordinary' mind (and body) feels like a churning pot of inner conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2005 Report Share Posted January 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: <snip> > > > I am not ruling out the possibility of avoiding conflict as > > > many sages point at, and that's why I said 'ordinary' human > > > mind... > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > What is an " ordinary human mind " ? > > Can one experience anything else but his own mind and if not > > then what is the aim of using assumptions about what is > > " ordinary " , " inherent " , " unavoidable " and so on? > > > > My hat off to the sages but when it comes to postulates, on > > which one's own mind is building its own model of reality, > > personal experiences should be the only thing that counts (the > > mind is self-referential, after all). Adopting someone else's > > postulates without checking them against one's own experiences > > leads to an incomplete, distorted and self-contradictory model > > of reality - i.e., to a state where conflict is present. It > > doesn't really matter whether we adopt (without checking) an > > idea coming from a sage or from someone else - the result is > > the same. > > > > Tomina > > I have experienced moments of peace, and compared to those > moments, my 'ordinary' mind (and body) feels like a churning pot > of inner conflict. While experiencing these moments of peace have you had the distinct awareness that " this state doesn't feel like my 'ordinary' mind (and body) " ? What if the peaceful state is always present " underneath " the state of conflict, the latter running automatically (a self-referential cycle), and whenever something causes a glitch, a pause in this perpetual motion you become aware of the underlying state? What criteria do you use in order to distinguish which one is the ordinary state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2005 Report Share Posted January 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tomina " <tomina_t> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > I am not ruling out the possibility of avoiding conflict as > > > > many sages point at, and that's why I said 'ordinary' human > > > > mind... > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > What is an " ordinary human mind " ? > > > Can one experience anything else but his own mind and if not > > > then what is the aim of using assumptions about what is > > > " ordinary " , " inherent " , " unavoidable " and so on? > > > > > > My hat off to the sages but when it comes to postulates, on > > > which one's own mind is building its own model of reality, > > > personal experiences should be the only thing that counts (the > > > mind is self-referential, after all). Adopting someone else's > > > postulates without checking them against one's own experiences > > > leads to an incomplete, distorted and self-contradictory model > > > of reality - i.e., to a state where conflict is present. It > > > doesn't really matter whether we adopt (without checking) an > > > idea coming from a sage or from someone else - the result is > > > the same. > > > > > > Tomina > > > > I have experienced moments of peace, and compared to those > > moments, my 'ordinary' mind (and body) feels like a churning pot > > of inner conflict. > > > While experiencing these moments of peace have you had the distinct > awareness that " this state doesn't feel like my 'ordinary' mind > (and body) " ? > > What if the peaceful state is always present " underneath " the state > of conflict, the latter running automatically (a self-referential > cycle), and whenever something causes a glitch, a pause in this > perpetual motion you become aware of the underlying state? > > What criteria do you use in order to distinguish which one is the > ordinary state? When experience peace I think: this is enough, how I feel now is right. Thinking is only a tiny aspect in a state of true peace. A nice energy is felt throughout the body. It is almost like the opposite of pain. When we have a back pain or a head ache, then when it goes away we feel a relief, but that is only the absence of particular pain. To feel good is more than just absence of pain. /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.