Guest guest Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > " Choice implies consciousness - a high degree of consciousness. > > > > Without it, I have no choice. > > > > > > > > Choice begins the moment I dis-identify from my mind and its > > > > conditioned patterns, the moment I become Self-present. Until I > > reach > > > > that point, I'm unconscious, spiritually speaking. > > > > > > > > This means that I'm compelled to think, feel, and act in certain > > ways > > > > according to the conditioning of my mind. > > > > > > > > Nobody consciously chooses dis-function, conflict, and pain. > > Nobody > > > > chooses insanity. They happen because > > > > there isn't enough conscious Self-presence to dissolve the past, > > not > > > > enough light to dispel the darkness. > > > > > > > > I'm never fully here in the now because I'm either time binding > > with > > > > the past or the future. I have not quite woken up, meaning I'm > > not > > > > fully Self-conscious yet. In the meantime, my conditioned mind > > is > > > > running my life. > > > > > > > > As long as my mind (with its conditioned patterns) runs my life, > > what > > > > choice do I have? NONE! > > > > > > > > I'm not even there yet, and I won't be there until I become Self- > > > > conscious. > > > > > > > > THE MIND-IDENTIFIED STATE IS SEVERELY DIS-FUNCTIONAL. > > > > > > > > It is a form of socially acceptable insanity. Almost everyone is > > > > suffering from this illness in varying degrees. The moment I > > realize > > > > this, there can be no more resentment or guilt. > > > > > > > > How can I resent someone's illness or my own? > > > > > > > > If I'm primarily run by my mind, I will suffer the consequences > > of my > > > > mind identification, and I'll create further suffering for > > myself and > > > > my loved ones. > > > > I will bear the burden of fear, conflict, problems, and pain. > > The > > > > suffering that I'm creating is my mind's false attempt to make > > me > > > > feel safe by ignoring, denying, > > > > or repressing that which I'm experiencing. " > > > > > > These are strong words by Tolle. But what they mean is: choice > > sprung > > > out of rational thinking is not choice at all because it is just a > > > view of the past, and the past has already happened; hence no > > choice > > > is in reality being made in that way. None. Zip. Zero. > > > > > > Humans are aware of the past and newness. The past is by definition > > > not moving, static, frozen, dead. The 9/11 disaster has already > > > happened. Last second has already happened. All thoughts perceived > > has > > > already happened. They are " dead " entities, so to speak. Newness on > > > the other hand is alive. Rational thinking cannot handle newness in > > > any way at all, because it is totally oblivious about newness. > > > > > > Only when the mind moves away from the past and touches newness in > > the > > > moment is any real choice possible. > > > > > > /AL > > > > ** Same mistake, talking about the mind as separate from the > > remembered past. It IS the memories, which is the ONLY 'past.' > > > > So it can never touch newness, nowness. They cannot co- exist. > > Innumerable 'little deaths' are required. > > > > Nothing to be done--it's already the case! It's always > > dissolving--right now...and now. And " you " with it. > > Yes, the frustrating thing is that " I " cannot do anything about > change. I am not the creator of change. But if by grace the " I " were > to move into nowness, then I would become the real doer. > > /AL ** Doing, moving and change would require duration in time, location in space. And possibly doers, actors, movers--or at least 'observers.' So it's all inference. But then, 'inferences' would have the same requirements! Curiouser and curiouser... ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > " Choice implies consciousness - a high degree of > consciousness. > > > > Without it, I have no choice. > > > > > > > > Choice begins the moment I dis-identify from my mind and its > > > > conditioned patterns, the moment I become Self-present. Until > I > > > reach > > > > that point, I'm unconscious, spiritually speaking. > > > > > > > > This means that I'm compelled to think, feel, and act in > certain > > > ways > > > > according to the conditioning of my mind. > > > > > > > > Nobody consciously chooses dis-function, conflict, and pain. > > > Nobody > > > > chooses insanity. They happen because > > > > there isn't enough conscious Self-presence to dissolve the > past, > > > not > > > > enough light to dispel the darkness. > > > > > > > > I'm never fully here in the now because I'm either time > binding > > > with > > > > the past or the future. I have not quite woken up, meaning I'm > > not > > > > fully Self-conscious yet. In the meantime, my conditioned mind > is > > > > running my life. > > > > > > > > As long as my mind (with its conditioned patterns) runs my > life, > > > what > > > > choice do I have? NONE! > > > > > > > > I'm not even there yet, and I won't be there until I become > Self- > > > > conscious. > > > > > > > > THE MIND-IDENTIFIED STATE IS SEVERELY DIS-FUNCTIONAL. > > > > > > > > It is a form of socially acceptable insanity. Almost everyone > is > > > > suffering from this illness in varying degrees. The moment I > > > realize > > > > this, there can be no more resentment or guilt. > > > > > > > > How can I resent someone's illness or my own? > > > > > > > > If I'm primarily run by my mind, I will suffer the > consequences > > of > > > my > > > > mind identification, and I'll create further suffering for > myself > > > and > > > > my loved ones. > > > > I will bear the burden of fear, conflict, problems, and pain. > The > > > > suffering that I'm creating is my mind's false attempt to make > me > > > > feel safe by ignoring, denying, > > > > or repressing that which I'm experiencing. " > > > > > > ** Arvind, this whole scenario was constructed by mind. > > > Identification, disidentification, resentment, bondage, > > > conditioning, patterns, etc.--all of it, including the > > sufferer > > > of it and the > > > supposed remedy, which you call " Self-present, higher > > > consciousness. " > > > > > > Yet you speak of 'mind' as if it is something separate, > > > something > > > other than what it has manufactured. Is that a fact? Is that > > > possible? > > > > > > Really, isn't it a mind-trick to keep the whole self- > > > replicating, > > > circular game going? Now there's another level of falsity-- > > > a me, an observer, a believer or disbeliever in the previous > > > constructions/imaginings, an entity or process > > > that can assess, struggle, try to realign it in > > > accordance with spiritual teachings--in a effort to > get 'free' > > > of it. > > > > > > cool. > > > > > > > The question is: can you be quick enough, alert enough to > > > catch it as it's happening? Can you be fully that awareness > > > that doesn't require bringing in anything from memory, in > the > > > form of teachings, knowledge or experience? > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > how is " being quick enough, alert enough " not another mind game? > > > > how is " catching it as it's happening " not a split? > > ** Who could be aware of that but you, as *inquiry,* as *this*? you think *this* has anything to do with you? how is " me being aware as *inquiry*, as *this* " not another form of self-replication, another mind game? that's the big question, isn't it - can i be aware? as higher consciousness, as Self, as the watcher, as meditation, as inquiry, as *this*, as whatever. you know, Ken, most of the time you sound like you're recycling Dan, but the way i see it, you're missing one important element of his talk about " inquiry " and " this " . i'll let you find out what that is. > Was anything constructed with those phrases, > by that communication--anything actual? > > Ken is anything actual constructed by saying anything? as for what your words pointed to - they pointed to " i am *this*. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " Choice implies consciousness - a high degree of > > consciousness. > > > > > Without it, I have no choice. > > > > > > > > > > Choice begins the moment I dis-identify from my mind and its > > > > > conditioned patterns, the moment I become Self-present. Until > > I > > > > reach > > > > > that point, I'm unconscious, spiritually speaking. > > > > > > > > > > This means that I'm compelled to think, feel, and act in > > certain > > > > ways > > > > > according to the conditioning of my mind. > > > > > > > > > > Nobody consciously chooses dis-function, conflict, and pain. > > > > Nobody > > > > > chooses insanity. They happen because > > > > > there isn't enough conscious Self-presence to dissolve the > > past, > > > > not > > > > > enough light to dispel the darkness. > > > > > > > > > > I'm never fully here in the now because I'm either time > > binding > > > > with > > > > > the past or the future. I have not quite woken up, meaning > I'm > > > not > > > > > fully Self-conscious yet. In the meantime, my conditioned > mind > > is > > > > > running my life. > > > > > > > > > > As long as my mind (with its conditioned patterns) runs my > > life, > > > > what > > > > > choice do I have? NONE! > > > > > > > > > > I'm not even there yet, and I won't be there until I become > > Self- > > > > > conscious. > > > > > > > > > > THE MIND-IDENTIFIED STATE IS SEVERELY DIS-FUNCTIONAL. > > > > > > > > > > It is a form of socially acceptable insanity. Almost everyone > > is > > > > > suffering from this illness in varying degrees. The moment I > > > > realize > > > > > this, there can be no more resentment or guilt. > > > > > > > > > > How can I resent someone's illness or my own? > > > > > > > > > > If I'm primarily run by my mind, I will suffer the > > consequences > > > of > > > > my > > > > > mind identification, and I'll create further suffering for > > myself > > > > and > > > > > my loved ones. > > > > > I will bear the burden of fear, conflict, problems, and pain. > > The > > > > > suffering that I'm creating is my mind's false attempt to > make > > me > > > > > feel safe by ignoring, denying, > > > > > or repressing that which I'm experiencing. " > > > > > > > > ** Arvind, this whole scenario was constructed by mind. > > > > Identification, disidentification, resentment, bondage, > > > > conditioning, patterns, etc.--all of it, including the > > > sufferer > > > > of it and the > > > > supposed remedy, which you call " Self-present, higher > > > > consciousness. " > > > > > > > > Yet you speak of 'mind' as if it is something separate, > > > > something > > > > other than what it has manufactured. Is that a fact? Is > that > > > > possible? > > > > > > > > Really, isn't it a mind-trick to keep the whole self- > > > > replicating, > > > > circular game going? Now there's another level of falsity-- > > > > a me, an observer, a believer or disbeliever in the > previous > > > > constructions/imaginings, an entity or process > > > > that can assess, struggle, try to realign it in > > > > accordance with spiritual teachings--in a effort to > > get 'free' > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > cool. > > > > > > > > > > The question is: can you be quick enough, alert enough to > > > > catch it as it's happening? Can you be fully that awareness > > > > that doesn't require bringing in anything from memory, in > > the > > > > form of teachings, knowledge or experience? > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > how is " being quick enough, alert enough " not another mind game? > > > > > > how is " catching it as it's happening " not a split? > > > > ** Who could be aware of that but you, as *inquiry,* as *this*? > > > you think *this* has anything to do with you? > > how is " me being aware as *inquiry*, as *this* " not another form of > self-replication, another mind game? ** That's your trip, Dabo--twisting other people's words-- until they can't recognize them. So what--if that's what get you off? > > > that's the big question, isn't it - can i be aware? > > as higher consciousness, as Self, as the watcher, as meditation, as > inquiry, as *this*, as whatever. ** I hope you get to the root of whatever seems meaningful for you. Honest. > > > you know, Ken, most of the time you sound like you're recycling Dan, > but the way i see it, you're missing one important element of his > talk about " inquiry " and " this " . > > i'll let you find out what that is. ** Well, he's damn good. Good stuff should be used only once? And me, I'm discriminating. I'm not about to recycle your snide adolescent cuts! And Dan, he recycles good ol' rock 'n roll lyrics--refreshing in today's mediocre, commercial music scene. > > > > Was anything constructed with those phrases, > > by that communication--anything actual? > > > > Ken > > > is anything actual constructed by saying anything? ** My point. > > as for what your words pointed to - they pointed to " i am *this*. " ** I'm not responsible for what you do with them! K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " Choice implies consciousness - a high degree of > consciousness. > > > > > Without it, I have no choice. > > > > > > > > > > Choice begins the moment I dis-identify from my mind and its > > > > > conditioned patterns, the moment I become Self-present. > Until I > > > reach > > > > > that point, I'm unconscious, spiritually speaking. > > > > > > > > > > This means that I'm compelled to think, feel, and act in > certain > > > ways > > > > > according to the conditioning of my mind. > > > > > > > > > > Nobody consciously chooses dis-function, conflict, and pain. > > > Nobody > > > > > chooses insanity. They happen because > > > > > there isn't enough conscious Self-presence to dissolve the > past, > > > not > > > > > enough light to dispel the darkness. > > > > > > > > > > I'm never fully here in the now because I'm either time > binding > > > with > > > > > the past or the future. I have not quite woken up, meaning > I'm > > > not > > > > > fully Self-conscious yet. In the meantime, my conditioned > mind > > > is > > > > > running my life. > > > > > > > > > > As long as my mind (with its conditioned patterns) runs my > life, > > > what > > > > > choice do I have? NONE! > > > > > > > > > > I'm not even there yet, and I won't be there until I become > Self- > > > > > conscious. > > > > > > > > > > THE MIND-IDENTIFIED STATE IS SEVERELY DIS-FUNCTIONAL. > > > > > > > > > > It is a form of socially acceptable insanity. Almost > everyone is > > > > > suffering from this illness in varying degrees. The moment I > > > realize > > > > > this, there can be no more resentment or guilt. > > > > > > > > > > How can I resent someone's illness or my own? > > > > > > > > > > If I'm primarily run by my mind, I will suffer the > consequences > > > of my > > > > > mind identification, and I'll create further suffering for > > > myself and > > > > > my loved ones. > > > > > I will bear the burden of fear, conflict, problems, and > pain. > > > The > > > > > suffering that I'm creating is my mind's false attempt to > make > > > me > > > > > feel safe by ignoring, denying, > > > > > or repressing that which I'm experiencing. " > > > > > > > > These are strong words by Tolle. But what they mean is: choice > > > sprung > > > > out of rational thinking is not choice at all because it is > just a > > > > view of the past, and the past has already happened; hence no > > > choice > > > > is in reality being made in that way. None. Zip. Zero. > > > > > > > > Humans are aware of the past and newness. The past is by > definition > > > > not moving, static, frozen, dead. The 9/11 disaster has already > > > > happened. Last second has already happened. All thoughts > perceived > > > has > > > > already happened. They are " dead " entities, so to speak. > Newness on > > > > the other hand is alive. Rational thinking cannot handle > newness in > > > > any way at all, because it is totally oblivious about newness. > > > > > > > > Only when the mind moves away from the past and touches > newness in > > > the > > > > moment is any real choice possible. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > ** Same mistake, talking about the mind as separate from the > > > remembered past. It IS the memories, which is the > ONLY 'past.' > > > > > > So it can never touch newness, nowness. They cannot co- > exist. > > > Innumerable 'little deaths' are required. > > > > > > Nothing to be done--it's already the case! It's always > > > dissolving--right now...and now. And " you " with it. > > > > Yes, the frustrating thing is that " I " cannot do anything about > > change. I am not the creator of change. But if by grace the " I " > were > > to move into nowness, then I would become the real doer. > > > > /AL > > ** Doing, moving and change would require duration in time, > location in space. > > And possibly doers, actors, movers--or at least 'observers.' > > So it's all inference. > > But then, 'inferences' would have the same requirements! > > Curiouser and curiouser... > > ;D We need time as a healer (or possibly, God forbid, as a growing tormentor). Our view of time can move gradually into a view of change in the moment instead of a streching out into past and future. The fear can gradually be dissolved in the moment. Let's say we are very afraid of terrorists. We can then notice that this fear is (a) very deep, because it goes way down into our genetic structure, and (b) only noticed as a surface phenomena when we are thinking about terrorists, for example while sitting in an airplane. But, as Vernon Howard said, " A wolf hidden in a cave is still a hideous wolf " . All our fears are present all the time as a contraction in body and mind even when _particular_ fear are not visible in direct thinking. The trick is to notice this entire package of fear and how it is related to anger, irritation and desires. We must recognize the futility of handling this conflict by accumulating more knowledge. We must let God enter into our being and dissolve the conflict. Doing, moving and change requires location in space, but not duration in time. By the grace of God action becomes one whole movement in the timeless moment. But that requires loss of fear as the ruler. And loss of fear cannot be done by any individual, for the individual _is_ fear. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > how is " being quick enough, alert enough " not another mind game? > > > > > > how is " catching it as it's happening " not a split? > > > > ** Who could be aware of that but you, as *inquiry,* as *this*? > > > you think *this* has anything to do with you? > > how is " me being aware as *inquiry*, as *this* " not another form of > self-replication, another mind game? > > > that's the big question, isn't it - can i be aware? > > as higher consciousness, as Self, as the watcher, as meditation, as > inquiry, as *this*, as whatever. > f. Science has found that the mind is like a complicated machine, it's a sophisticated computer. People think there is a person, a little homonculus, the special human mind, sitting there watching the screen inside their head. But the little man is another picture on the screen in their head. When the little man is on the screen in their head, it means they are thinking about the little man, and that is another bit of the brain watching the screen. The brain doesn't see this happening because it is like a computer, and has to turn off for a fraction of a second while the screen changes, so that you won't get dizzy seeing everything all at once while the screen changes. The mind doesn't see the turn off because it fills in the screen with a picture of things it's not looking at at that moment. By virtue of the fact that they can't see this, they think it is special, because people always think there is something special about what they can't see. " Time " is a mystery too and it has not been solve yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The question is: can you be quick enough, alert enough > to > > > > > catch it as it's happening? Can you be fully that > awareness > > > > > that doesn't require bringing in anything from memory, > in > > > the > > > > > form of teachings, knowledge or experience? > > > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > how is " being quick enough, alert enough " not another mind > game? > > > > > > > > how is " catching it as it's happening " not a split? > > > > > > ** Who could be aware of that but you, as *inquiry,* as *this*? > > > > > > you think *this* has anything to do with you? > > > > how is " me being aware as *inquiry*, as *this* " not another form > of > > self-replication, another mind game? > > ** That's your trip, Dabo--twisting other people's words-- > until they can't recognize them. i didn't twist anything - i repeated your exact words, and asked a question. which you avoided. > So what--if that's what get you off? > > > > > > that's the big question, isn't it - can i be aware? > > > > as higher consciousness, as Self, as the watcher, as meditation, > as > > inquiry, as *this*, as whatever. > > ** I hope you get to the root of whatever seems meaningful > for you. Honest. me too. and, you avoided my question again. > > you know, Ken, most of the time you sound like you're recycling > Dan, > > but the way i see it, you're missing one important element of his > > talk about " inquiry " and " this " . > > > > i'll let you find out what that is. > > ** Well, he's damn good. it's not a matter of Dan being good or bad, or knowing what he's talking about. it's a matter of you knowing what you're talking about. Good stuff should be used only once? > And me, I'm discriminating. those who know what they're talking about don't need to discriminate who to recycle - they don't need to recycle. I'm not about to recycle your > snide adolescent cuts! And Dan, he recycles good ol' rock 'n > roll lyrics--refreshing in today's mediocre, commercial > music scene. > > > > > > > Was anything constructed with those phrases, > > > by that communication--anything actual? > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > is anything actual constructed by saying anything? > > ** My point. in this context, it's not a point, it's a dodge. > > as for what your words pointed to - they pointed to " i am *this*. " > > ** I'm not responsible for what you do with them! > > K. another dodge. you don't sound as confident as usual - a lot less talk of inquiry, a lot more wisecracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 carolina112900 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: > >>Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> >>wrote: >> >>>> >>>>how is " being quick enough, alert enough " not another mind game? >>>> >>>>how is " catching it as it's happening " not a split? >>> >>> ** Who could be aware of that but you, as *inquiry,* as *this*? >> >> >>you think *this* has anything to do with you? >> >>how is " me being aware as *inquiry*, as *this* " not another form of >>self-replication, another mind game? >> >> >>that's the big question, isn't it - can i be aware? >> >>as higher consciousness, as Self, as the watcher, as meditation, as >>inquiry, as *this*, as whatever. >> > Hi freyja, Just some questions and comments for exploration. > > f. Science has found that > the [mind] is like a [complicated > machine,] it's a [sophisticated > computer.] People (think) there is a [person,] > a [little homonculus,] the special > [human mind,] (sitting there) (watching > the screen inside their head). But the > [little man] is another picture on the > screen in their head. When the [little > man] is on the screen in their head, > it means [they] are (thinking about) the > [little man,] and > that is another bit of the [brain] (watching > the screen). The [brain] (doesn't see this > happening) because it is like a [computer], > and (has to turn off for a fraction of a > second) while the screen changes, so that > [you] (won't get dizzy seeing everything all > at once) while the screen changes. The > [mind] doesn't see the turn off because it > fills in the screen with a picture of things > [it's] not looking at at that moment. > > By virtue of the fact that [they] can't see > this, [they] think it is special, because > [people] always think there is something > special about what [they] can't see. What you have said here is very interesting. It is not clear that there was an editing of this, to make this presentation. The interesting thing is that there are many " things " doing the same doings and it does not matter what label is used for the " doer " of the " things being done " and the latter are in the same category. These are bracketed above. " Homunculus, " " little man, " " brain, " " human mind, " " mind, " " computer, " " person, " " you, " " they, " " people, " " freyja, " (universal narrator) are doing the same things. These things are " thinking, " " sitting there, " " watching the screen inside, " " watching the screen, " " thinking about, " " doesn't see this happening, " " has to turn off for a fraction of a second, " " won't get dizzy seeing everything all at once, " " doesn't see the turn off, " " fills in the screen with a picture of things, " " not looking at at that moment, " " can't see, " " always think there is something special about, " " can't see. " Now this expression which seems to be made without any concern for consistency in the use of terms is extremely consistent in another way. In the examples below, " I " " I am " " mind " and " brain " have been inserted in a consistent way. The doings are the same, the attribution to who or what is doing it differs. The " doer " phenomena is labeled differently. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Science has found that the I am like a complicated machine, I am a sophisticated computer. I think there is a me, a little me, the special me, sitting there watching the screen inside my head. But me is another picture on the screen in my head. When the little me is on the screen in my head, it means I am thinking about the little me, and that is another bit of me watching the screen. I don't see this happening because I am like a computer, and I have to turn off for a fraction of a second while the screen changes, so that I don't get dizzy seeing everything all at once while the screen changes. I don't see the turn off because it fills in the screen with a picture of things I am not looking at at that moment. By virtue of the fact that I can't see this, I think it is special, because I always think there is something special about what I can't see. OR Science has found that the the mind is like a complicated machine, The mind is a sophisticated computer. The mind thinks there is a little mind, a little mind function, the special human mind, sitting there watching the screen inside the head. But the mind function is another picture on the screen in the head. When the little mind function is on the screen in the head, it means the mind is thinking about the mind function, and that is another bit of the mind watching the screen. The mind doesn't see this happening because the mind is like a computer, and the mind has to turn off for a fraction of a second while the screen changes, so that the mind doesn't get dizzy seeing everything all at once while the screen changes. The mind doesn't see the turn off because it fills in the screen with a picture of things the mind is not looking at at that moment. By virtue of the fact that the mind can't see this, the mind thinks it is special, because the mind always thinks there is something special about what it can't see. Or Science has found that the brain is like a complicated machine, The brain is a sophisticated computer. The brain thinks there is a little brain, a little brain function, the special human brain, sitting there watching the screen inside the head. But the brain function is another picture on the screen in the head. When the little brain function is on the screen in the head, it means the brain is thinking about the brain function, and that is another bit of the brain watching the screen. The brain doesn't see this happening because the brain is like a computer, and the brain has to turn off for a fraction of a second while the screen changes, so that the brain doesn't get dizzy seeing everything all at once while the screen changes. The brain doesn't see the turn off because it fills in the screen with a picture of things the brain is not looking at at that moment. By virtue of the fact that the brain can't see this, the brain thinks it is special, because the brain always thinks there is something special about what it can't see. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now it seems that it does not matter what thing is and it does not affect the explanation of the doing in any way. So we can insert anything into the doing position. A term from WC Fields vocabulary, squigulum, will do. Science has found that the squigulum is like a complicated machine, The squigulum is a sophisticated computer. The squigulum thinks there is a little squigulum, a little squigulum function, the special human squigulum, sitting there watching the screen inside the head. But the squigulum function is another picture on the screen in the head. When the little squigulum function is on the screen in the head, it means the squigulum is thinking about the squigulum function, and that is another bit of the squigulum watching the screen. The squigulum doesn't see this happening because the squigulum is like a computer, and the squigulum has to turn off for a fraction of a second while the screen changes, so that the squigulum doesn't get dizzy seeing everything all at once while the screen changes. The squigulum doesn't see the turn off because it fills in the screen with a picture of things the squigulum is not looking at at that moment. By virtue of the fact that the squigulum can't see this, the squigulum thinks it is special, because the squigulum always thinks there is something special about what it can't see. Considering these examples, it can be said that the " doer " of the things done is insignificant and does not matter which label originally used in freyja message is substituted, the doing remains understandable. This is because " I " " I am " " mind " and " brain " manly connote agency and little more. But we can add agency to any thing. If we substitute God, wordless wonder, the One, and other indescribables as was done with the others, it does not work because these have connotation far beyond simple agency. This implies the " I " and " I am " are not equivalent to " I " " I AM " which has connotations similar to that of God or wordless wonder or the One all of which are concepts and dissolvable. What seems not to be acceptable as dissolvable are the appearances as they are and their movements. Infinite regress is halted by these terms, God, wordless wonder, the One, etc., which are used to create an ultimacy as the basis, the terminus, for preventing, stopping an inward spin and descent into absolute nothingness and meaninglessness. Without these terminals, nihilism reigns and with nihilism comes absolute chaos. The experience of such irremediable chaos arouses intense fear and we build edifices to prevent entry into it. Nondual philosophy of all kinds as it has been refashioned by non-founders are the epitome of such edifices and these edifices and methods are built, rebuilt, and repaired daily and entered into for protection from chaos, from nihilism, the Arch Deconstructor, that is always at work as a hidden movement that is necessary for human survival at levels of being and doing. This inordinate avoidance behavior, this obviation of chaos made possible by the interest and belief in " God, " " wordless wonder " " the One " and so on is the basis of the " downfalling " of humankind. Once chaos is fully experienced and understood and its relations and operations seen and there is a flow into balance, fear is lessened and eliminated and realizations proceed as it is without effort. Thanks freyja for the message that called this. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > carolina112900 wrote: > >>Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: >> >> >>>Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>how is " being quick enough, alert enough " not another mind game? >>>>> >>>>>how is " catching it as it's happening " not a split? >>>> >>>> ** Who could be aware of that but you, as *inquiry,* as *this*? >>> >>> >>>you think *this* has anything to do with you? >>> >>>how is " me being aware as *inquiry*, as *this* " not another form of >>>self-replication, another mind game? >>> >>> >>>that's the big question, isn't it - can i be aware? >>> >>>as higher consciousness, as Self, as the watcher, as meditation, as >>>inquiry, as *this*, as whatever. >>> >> > > > Hi freyja, > > Just some questions and comments for exploration. > > >>f. Science has found that >>the [mind] is like a [complicated >>machine,] it's a [sophisticated >>computer.] People (think) there is a [person,] >>a [little homonculus,] the special >>[human mind,] (sitting there) (watching >>the screen inside their head). But the >>[little man] is another picture on the >>screen in their head. When the [little >>man] is on the screen in their head, >>it means [they] are (thinking about) the >>[little man,] and >>that is another bit of the [brain] (watching >>the screen). The [brain] (doesn't see this >>happening) because it is like a [computer], >>and (has to turn off for a fraction of a >>second) while the screen changes, so that >>[you] (won't get dizzy seeing everything all >>at once) while the screen changes. The >>[mind] doesn't see the turn off because it >>fills in the screen with a picture of things >>[it's] not looking at at that moment. >> >>By virtue of the fact that [they] can't see >>this, [they] think it is special, because >>[people] always think there is something >>special about what [they] can't see. > > > What you have said here is very interesting. It is not clear that there > was an editing of this, to make this presentation. The interesting thing > is that there are many " things " doing the same doings and it does not > matter what label is used for the " doer " of the " things being done " and > the latter are in the same category. These are bracketed above. > > " Homunculus, " " little man, " " brain, " " human mind, " " mind, " " computer, " > " person, " " you, " " they, " " people, " " freyja, " (universal narrator) are > doing the same things. These things are " thinking, " " sitting there, " > " watching the screen inside, " " watching the screen, " " thinking about, " > " doesn't see this happening, " " has to turn off for a fraction of a > second, " " won't get dizzy seeing everything all > at once, " " doesn't see the turn off, " " fills in the screen with a > picture of things, " " not looking at at that moment, " " can't see, " > " always think there is something special about, " " can't see. " > > Now this expression which seems to be made without any concern for > consistency in the use of terms is extremely consistent in another way. > > In the examples below, " I " " I am " " mind " and " brain " have been inserted > in a consistent way. The doings are the same, the attribution to who or > what is doing it differs. The " doer " phenomena is labeled differently. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Science has found that > the I am like a complicated > machine, I am a sophisticated > computer. I think there is a me, > a little me, the special > me, sitting there watching > the screen inside my head. But > me is another picture on the > screen in my head. When the little > me is on the screen in my head, > it means I am thinking about the > little me, and > that is another bit of me watching > the screen. I don't see this > happening because I am like a computer, > and I have to turn off for a fraction of a > second while the screen changes, so that > I don't get dizzy seeing everything all > at once while the screen changes. I > don't see the turn off because it > fills in the screen with a picture of things > I am not looking at at that moment. > > By virtue of the fact that I can't see > this, I think it is special, because > I always think there is something > special about what I can't see. > > > OR > > > > Science has found that > the the mind is like a complicated > machine, The mind is a sophisticated > computer. The mind thinks there is a little mind, > a little mind function, the special > human mind, sitting there watching > the screen inside the head. But > the mind function is another picture on the > screen in the head. When the little > mind function is on the screen in the head, > it means the mind is thinking about the > mind function, and > that is another bit of the mind watching > the screen. The mind doesn't see this > happening because the mind is like a computer, > and the mind has to turn off for a fraction of a > second while the screen changes, so that > the mind doesn't get dizzy seeing everything all > at once while the screen changes. The mind > doesn't see the turn off because it > fills in the screen with a picture of things > the mind is not looking at at that moment. > > By virtue of the fact that the mind can't see > this, the mind thinks it is special, because > the mind always thinks there is something > special about what it can't see. > > Or > > Science has found that > the brain is like a complicated > machine, The brain is a sophisticated > computer. The brain thinks there is a little brain, > a little brain function, the special > human brain, sitting there watching > the screen inside the head. But > the brain function is another picture on the > screen in the head. When the little > brain function is on the screen in the head, > it means the brain is thinking about the > brain function, and > that is another bit of the brain watching > the screen. The brain doesn't see this > happening because the brain is like a computer, > and the brain has to turn off for a fraction of a > second while the screen changes, so that > the brain doesn't get dizzy seeing everything all > at once while the screen changes. The brain > doesn't see the turn off because it > fills in the screen with a picture of things > the brain is not looking at at that moment. > > By virtue of the fact that the brain can't see > this, the brain thinks it is special, because > the brain always thinks there is something > special about what it can't see. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Now it seems that it does not matter what thing is and it does not > affect the explanation of the doing in any way. So we can insert > anything into the doing position. A term from WC Fields vocabulary, > squigulum, will do. > > Science has found that > the squigulum is like a complicated > machine, The squigulum is a sophisticated > computer. The squigulum thinks there is a little squigulum, > a little squigulum function, the special > human squigulum, sitting there watching > the screen inside the head. But > the squigulum function is another picture on the > screen in the head. When the little > squigulum function is on the screen in the head, > it means the squigulum is thinking about the > squigulum function, and > that is another bit of the squigulum watching > the screen. The squigulum doesn't see this > happening because the squigulum is like a computer, > and the squigulum has to turn off for a fraction of a > second while the screen changes, so that > the squigulum doesn't get dizzy seeing everything all > at once while the screen changes. The squigulum > doesn't see the turn off because it > fills in the screen with a picture of things > the squigulum is not looking at at that moment. > > By virtue of the fact that the squigulum can't see > this, the squigulum thinks it is special, because > the squigulum always thinks there is something > special about what it can't see. > > Considering these examples, it can be said that the " doer " of the things > done is insignificant and does not matter which label originally used in > freyja message is substituted, the doing remains understandable. > > This is because " I " " I am " " mind " and " brain " manly connote agency and > little more. But we can add agency to any thing. > > If we substitute God, wordless wonder, the One, and other indescribables > as was done with the others, it does not work because these have > connotation far beyond simple agency. > > This implies the " I " and " I am " are not equivalent to " I " " I AM " which > has connotations similar to that of God or wordless wonder or the One > all of which are concepts and dissolvable. > > What seems not to be acceptable as dissolvable are the appearances as > they are and their movements. Infinite regress is halted by these terms, > God, wordless wonder, the One, etc., which are used to create an > ultimacy as the basis, the terminus, for preventing, stopping an inward > spin and descent into absolute nothingness and meaninglessness. Without > these terminals, nihilism reigns and with nihilism comes absolute chaos. > The experience of such irremediable chaos arouses intense fear and we > build edifices to prevent entry into it. Nondual philosophy of all kinds > as it has been refashioned by non-founders are the epitome of such > edifices and these edifices and methods are built, rebuilt, and repaired > daily and entered into for protection from chaos, from nihilism, the > Arch Deconstructor, that is always at work as a hidden movement that is > necessary for human survival at levels of being and doing. This > inordinate avoidance behavior, this obviation of chaos made possible by > the interest and belief in " God, " " wordless wonder " " the One " and so on > is the basis of the " downfalling " of humankind. Once chaos is fully > experienced and understood and its relations and operations seen and > there is a flow into balance, fear is lessened and eliminated and > realizations proceed as it is without effort. > > Thanks freyja for the message that called this. > > Lewis After such descent and balance, the quotations marks come off " God, " " wordless wonder " " the One " and these are incarnated, lived, substantiated, or labeled in some other way. Lewis > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.