Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 In a message dated 2/21/05 2:56:34 AM, anders_lindman writes: > Al: >I believe what buddhists call no-mind is the same as awareness itself. > P: Al, I know whatever I say here will only stimulate more useless thinking in you, and probably do little or no good, but for the sake of others let's point out the following: The belief that awareness is the same as no mind is as useful as the belief that a unicorn is the same as a pegasus. That belief will not contribute to give your brain a deep state of calmness, or give rest to your hyperactive intellect. > >A: Phenomenal objects are of course still there in a state of no-mind or > >awareness, but they are not an obstruction, they are not things having > >to be dealt with. > P: What useless crap! Objects are never an obstruction to peace, is your evaluation of the situation you are in, which bring unrest. > A:>No-mind is simply a recognition that awareness is > >who you are. > P: LOL. If the thought 'I'm awareness' is there, then 'no mind' is not. It doesn't matter what you call your yourself, only the absence of the need for an identity is freedom. > A: And when you know yourself ot be awareness, objectless > >awareness, then you don't look at yourself as a phenomenal object. > >Then the mind filled with objects becomes the no-mind. > P: Same as above, Al, as long as there is an 'I,' identifying itself with a label, the old trap is still there. A prison by any other name is still lack of freedom. > > A: >And when you know yourself to be awareness, the internal battle > between " you " and " the world " starts to dissolve. Your body becomes > >liberated from that heavy load called " you " vs " the world " . Awareness > is alive. Awareness is refreshing. Awareness is immensely powerful. It > >will blow away contractions throughout your entire body/mind structure. > P: Is this what happened to Al? Or just what you hope will happen? Shut up and see what happens, Al. Can you stop reading and posting for a week? I know you can't stop thinking even for 15 minutes, but reading, and writing should be easier. No? ) > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 I believe what buddhists call no-mind is the same as awareness itself. Phenomenal objects are of course still there in a state of no-mind or awareness, but they are not an obstruction, they are not things having to be dealt with. No-mind is simply a recognition that awareness is who you are. And when you know yourself ot be awareness, object-less awareness, then you don't look at yourself as a phenomenal object. Then the mind filled with objects becomes the no-mind. And when you know yourself to be awareness, the internal battle between " you " and " the world " starts to dissolve. Your body becomes liberated from that heavy load called " you " vs " the world " . Awareness is alive. Awareness is refreshing. Awareness is immensely powerful. It will blow away contractions throughout your entire body/mind structure. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/21/05 2:56:34 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > Al: >I believe what buddhists call no-mind is the same as awareness itself. > > > P: Al, I know whatever I say here will only stimulate more useless thinking > in you, and probably do little or no good, but for the sake of others let's > point out the following: > The belief that awareness is the same as no mind is as useful as the belief > that a unicorn is the same as a pegasus. That belief will not contribute to > give your brain a deep state of calmness, or give rest to your hyperactive > intellect. The difference between no-mind and mind is simply its kind of content. Awareness trapped in an egoic sense creates an objectification of content called a " me " . The no-mind is simply unobstructed awareness where the object called me is no longer an object but simply a part of object-less content. A simple way to know the differernce between direct awareness and the " me " is to notice that awareness is aware now whereas the " me " is aware only in past or future. It's a trick of the mind to create the illusion of awareness in time. The Spell of Time as we can call it. > > > >A: Phenomenal objects are of course still there in a state of no-mind or > > >awareness, but they are not an obstruction, they are not things having > > >to be dealt with. > > > P: What useless crap! Objects are never an obstruction to peace, is your > evaluation of the situation you are in, which bring unrest. It is how objects are perceived that makes them obstruction or no obstruction. > > > A:>No-mind is simply a recognition that awareness is > > >who you are. > > > P: LOL. If the thought 'I'm awareness' is there, then 'no mind' > is not. It doesn't matter what you call your yourself, only > the absence of the need for an identity is freedom. Awareness is _always_ aware of being aware. > > > > A: And when you know yourself ot be awareness, objectless > > >awareness, then you don't look at yourself as a phenomenal object. > > >Then the mind filled with objects becomes the no-mind. > > > P: Same as above, Al, as long as there is an 'I,' identifying itself > with a label, the old trap is still there. A prison by any other name > is still lack of freedom. Seeing the prison is potentially the beginning of freedom from the prison. > > > > A: >And when you know yourself to be awareness, the internal battle > > between " you " and " the world " starts to dissolve. Your body becomes > > >liberated from that heavy load called " you " vs " the world " . Awareness > > is alive. Awareness is refreshing. Awareness is immensely powerful. It > > >will blow away contractions throughout your entire body/mind structure. > > > P: Is this what happened to Al? Or just what you hope will happen? Shut up > and see what happens, Al. Can you stop reading and posting for a week? > I know you can't stop thinking even for 15 minutes, but reading, and writing > should be easier. No? ) Ha! What can I say about the future except what I know now? And I can only know what I will post if I made some plan about what to post. I don't have such plan. I may have plans for when to go to vacation, to do this and that, but not for posting. I have sensed some loosening up of contracted areas in my body and with that a sort of inrease of awareness in those moments. But this is a slow process and perhaps that is good because its a very painful experience emotionally and physically. It's like numbed areas in the body awakens and when awareness flows into those areas there is an awakening of painful emotions and physical pain. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > >>In a message dated 2/21/05 2:56:34 AM, anders_lindman writes: >> >> >> >>>Al: >I believe what buddhists call no-mind is the same as >> > awareness itself. > >>P: Al, I know whatever I say here will only stimulate more useless > > thinking > >>in you, and probably do little or no good, but for the sake of > > others let's > >> point out the following: >>The belief that awareness is the same as no mind is as useful as the > > belief > >>that a unicorn is the same as a pegasus. That belief will not > > contribute to > >>give your brain a deep state of calmness, or give rest to your > > hyperactive > >>intellect. > > > The difference between no-mind and mind is simply its kind of content. > Awareness trapped in an egoic sense creates an objectification of > content called a " me " . The no-mind is simply unobstructed awareness > where the object called me is no longer an object but simply a part of > object-less content. Hi Anders, As you know, mind and no mind are concepts. They are pointers. Object-less content is a concept. Awareness is a concept. Me is a concept. Egoic sense is a concept. Objectification of content is a conceptual process. Unobstructed awareness is a concept. These are all conceptual objects. All of these are pointers. These are used to point to the appearances in experience, whatever that experience is conceptualized to be; thinking, feeling, sensing. All of it, is conception. No appearance be described fully in any way. All ultimately is indescribable, indescribable. This leaves only the conceiver. The conceiver if it is conceived is a concept. Just like these last two sentences, it is made up to point. Any thing written is a conception, a manifestation, a stand in. Who or what does this writing? This conceiving? That is experiential and not describable. There are millions of names, labels, descriptions none fit, none work, none suitable. None. For the sake of convenience, Some prefer not to use pronouns, still others prefer pseudonyms, others their given name and so on, other mix it up (I like the mixing it up). It does not matter what name is put to it, it is not it and it does not matter. Those appearances who still experience a person in a name or pronoun display ego and person hunting and changing behavior; hunting for that wily ego that is trying to trick or deceive or mess up so there arises suspicion of name and pronoun users making assertions as assertions are made, names signed and hunting done. There is nothing there. What is found is what appears in the hunter's appearance and experienced. Finding finds what it wants and what is seen is what is capable of being seen by the appearance. Some see in the same appearance different things. What finding is certain and not conceptual? It can be humorous how one appearance is apprehended in so many different ways and what is attempted modify it. We do as we are. Such indescribability does not prevent descriptions being made. It is one aspect of living to do this. What peoples on earth have not done this? It serves. It is used. The confusion has been and still is the nature of conceiving and its effects for living when the conceptions are believed and fixations and entanglements in them form and consequences for living. Does it matter that Anders thinks all day all the time in every way possible about any thing that comes? Some appearances do that. And they do it with remarkable facility and to them we owe many things in the history of knowledge making of all kinds. Anders can be seen as a wind up thinking toy with an infinite unwinding spring, or fixated on this or that, or ignorant and blind, neurotic, out of control and so on. All of these and more can be seen and many of these and other have been said here to Anders as Anders appears through words and expressions. Anders also can be seen as that or THAT, which is indescribable, doing here what is always done, showing each appearance by Anders response a mirror that reflects what that appearance is capable of seeing, experiencing, helping to see with clarity, by calling up responses to Anders words. Those responses, private and unexpressed, represent what each appearance is at the moment and in those responses are the lessons to be learned and mainly in the ephemeral ever changing phantom Anders who can be seen as this or that or THAT. In private responses to others, that which is not expressed in words here, we see what is in the appearance clearly, if it is allowed. The written responses to Anders provide additional mirrors to see what is in and what is not. > > A simple way to know the differernce between direct awareness and the > " me " is to notice that awareness is aware now whereas the " me " is > aware only in past or future. It's a trick of the mind to create the > illusion of awareness in time. The Spell of Time as we can call it. > > >>>>A: Phenomenal objects are of course still there in a state of >>> > no-mind or > >>>>awareness, but they are not an obstruction, they are not things >>> > having > >>>>to be dealt with. >>> >>P: What useless crap! Objects are never an obstruction to peace, is your >>evaluation of the situation you are in, which bring unrest. > > > It is how objects are perceived that makes them obstruction or no > obstruction. > > >>>A:>No-mind is simply a recognition that awareness is >>> >>>>who you are. >>> >>P: LOL. If the thought 'I'm awareness' is there, then 'no mind' >>is not. It doesn't matter what you call your yourself, only >>the absence of the need for an identity is freedom. > > > Awareness is _always_ aware of being aware. > > >> >>>A: And when you know yourself ot be awareness, objectless >>> >>>>awareness, then you don't look at yourself as a phenomenal object. >>>>Then the mind filled with objects becomes the no-mind. >>> >>P: Same as above, Al, as long as there is an 'I,' identifying itself >>with a label, the old trap is still there. A prison by any other name >>is still lack of freedom. > > > Seeing the prison is potentially the beginning of freedom from the > prison. > > >>>A: >And when you know yourself to be awareness, the internal battle >>>between " you " and " the world " starts to dissolve. Your body becomes >>> >>>>liberated from that heavy load called " you " vs " the world " . Awareness >>> >>>is alive. Awareness is refreshing. Awareness is immensely powerful. It >>> >>>>will blow away contractions throughout your entire body/mind >>> > structure. > >>P: Is this what happened to Al? Or just what you hope will happen? > > Shut up > >>and see what happens, Al. Can you stop reading and posting for a week? >>I know you can't stop thinking even for 15 minutes, but reading, and > > writing > >>should be easier. No? ) > > > Ha! What can I say about the future except what I know now? And I can > only know what I will post if I made some plan about what to post. I > don't have such plan. I may have plans for when to go to vacation, to > do this and that, but not for posting. > > I have sensed some loosening up of contracted areas in my body and > with that a sort of inrease of awareness in those moments. But this is > a slow process and perhaps that is good because its a very painful > experience emotionally and physically. It's like numbed areas in the > body awakens and when awareness flows into those areas there is an > awakening of painful emotions and physical pain. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > >>In a message dated 2/21/05 2:56:34 AM, anders_lindman writes: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Al: >I believe what buddhists call no-mind is the same as > >> > > awareness itself. > > > >>P: Al, I know whatever I say here will only stimulate more useless > > > > thinking > > > >>in you, and probably do little or no good, but for the sake of > > > > others let's > > > >> point out the following: > >>The belief that awareness is the same as no mind is as useful as the > > > > belief > > > >>that a unicorn is the same as a pegasus. That belief will not > > > > contribute to > > > >>give your brain a deep state of calmness, or give rest to your > > > > hyperactive > > > >>intellect. > > > > > > The difference between no-mind and mind is simply its kind of content. > > Awareness trapped in an egoic sense creates an objectification of > > content called a " me " . The no-mind is simply unobstructed awareness > > where the object called me is no longer an object but simply a part of > > object-less content. > > > Hi Anders, > > As you know, mind and no mind are concepts. They are pointers. > Object-less content is a concept. Awareness is a concept. Me is a > concept. Egoic sense is a concept. Objectification of content is a > conceptual process. Unobstructed awareness is a concept. These are all > conceptual objects. All of these are pointers. These are used to point > to the appearances in experience, whatever that experience is > conceptualized to be; thinking, feeling, sensing. All of it, is > conception. No appearance be described fully in any way. All ultimately > is indescribable, indescribable. > > This leaves only the conceiver. The conceiver if it is conceived is a > concept. Just like these last two sentences, it is made up to point. Any > thing written is a conception, a manifestation, a stand in. > > Who or what does this writing? This conceiving? That is experiential and > not describable. There are millions of names, labels, descriptions none > fit, none work, none suitable. None. > > For the sake of convenience, Some prefer not to use pronouns, still > others prefer pseudonyms, others their given name and so on, other mix > it up (I like the mixing it up). It does not matter what name is put to > it, it is not it and it does not matter. > > Those appearances who still experience a person in a name or pronoun > display ego and person hunting and changing behavior; hunting for that > wily ego that is trying to trick or deceive or mess up so there arises > suspicion of name and pronoun users making assertions as assertions are > made, names signed and hunting done. There is nothing there. What is > found is what appears in the hunter's appearance and experienced. > Finding finds what it wants and what is seen is what is capable of being > seen by the appearance. Some see in the same appearance different > things. What finding is certain and not conceptual? It can be humorous > how one appearance is apprehended in so many different ways and what is > attempted modify it. We do as we are. > > Such indescribability does not prevent descriptions being made. It is > one aspect of living to do this. What peoples on earth have not done > this? It serves. It is used. The confusion has been and still is the > nature of conceiving and its effects for living when the conceptions are > believed and fixations and entanglements in them form and consequences > for living. > > Does it matter that Anders thinks all day all the time in every way > possible about any thing that comes? Some appearances do that. And they > do it with remarkable facility and to them we owe many things in the > history of knowledge making of all kinds. Anders can be seen as a wind > up thinking toy with an infinite unwinding spring, or fixated on this or > that, or ignorant and blind, neurotic, out of control and so on. > > All of these and more can be seen and many of these and other have been > said here to Anders as Anders appears through words and expressions. > Anders also can be seen as that or THAT, which is indescribable, doing > here what is always done, showing each appearance by Anders response a > mirror that reflects what that appearance is capable of seeing, > experiencing, helping to see with clarity, by calling up responses to > Anders words. Those responses, private and unexpressed, represent what > each appearance is at the moment and in those responses are the lessons > to be learned and mainly in the ephemeral ever changing phantom Anders > who can be seen as this or that or THAT. > > In private responses to others, that which is not expressed in words > here, we see what is in the appearance clearly, if it is allowed. The > written responses to Anders provide additional mirrors to see what is in > and what is not. Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that concept. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > >>In a message dated 2/21/05 2:56:34 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>Al: >I believe what buddhists call no-mind is the same as > > >> > > > awareness itself. > > > > > >>P: Al, I know whatever I say here will only stimulate more useless > > > > > > thinking > > > > > >>in you, and probably do little or no good, but for the sake of > > > > > > others let's > > > > > >> point out the following: > > >>The belief that awareness is the same as no mind is as useful as the > > > > > > belief > > > > > >>that a unicorn is the same as a pegasus. That belief will not > > > > > > contribute to > > > > > >>give your brain a deep state of calmness, or give rest to your > > > > > > hyperactive > > > > > >>intellect. > > > > > > > > > The difference between no-mind and mind is simply its kind of content. > > > Awareness trapped in an egoic sense creates an objectification of > > > content called a " me " . The no-mind is simply unobstructed awareness > > > where the object called me is no longer an object but simply a part of > > > object-less content. > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > As you know, mind and no mind are concepts. They are pointers. > > Object-less content is a concept. Awareness is a concept. Me is a > > concept. Egoic sense is a concept. Objectification of content is a > > conceptual process. Unobstructed awareness is a concept. These are all > > conceptual objects. All of these are pointers. These are used to point > > to the appearances in experience, whatever that experience is > > conceptualized to be; thinking, feeling, sensing. All of it, is > > conception. No appearance be described fully in any way. All ultimately > > is indescribable, indescribable. > > > > This leaves only the conceiver. The conceiver if it is conceived is a > > concept. Just like these last two sentences, it is made up to point. > Any > > thing written is a conception, a manifestation, a stand in. > > > > Who or what does this writing? This conceiving? That is experiential > and > > not describable. There are millions of names, labels, descriptions none > > fit, none work, none suitable. None. > > > > For the sake of convenience, Some prefer not to use pronouns, still > > others prefer pseudonyms, others their given name and so on, other mix > > it up (I like the mixing it up). It does not matter what name is put to > > it, it is not it and it does not matter. > > > > Those appearances who still experience a person in a name or pronoun > > display ego and person hunting and changing behavior; hunting for that > > wily ego that is trying to trick or deceive or mess up so there arises > > suspicion of name and pronoun users making assertions as assertions are > > made, names signed and hunting done. There is nothing there. What is > > found is what appears in the hunter's appearance and experienced. > > Finding finds what it wants and what is seen is what is capable of > being > > seen by the appearance. Some see in the same appearance different > > things. What finding is certain and not conceptual? It can be humorous > > how one appearance is apprehended in so many different ways and what is > > attempted modify it. We do as we are. > > > > Such indescribability does not prevent descriptions being made. It is > > one aspect of living to do this. What peoples on earth have not done > > this? It serves. It is used. The confusion has been and still is the > > nature of conceiving and its effects for living when the conceptions > are > > believed and fixations and entanglements in them form and consequences > > for living. > > > > Does it matter that Anders thinks all day all the time in every way > > possible about any thing that comes? Some appearances do that. And they > > do it with remarkable facility and to them we owe many things in the > > history of knowledge making of all kinds. Anders can be seen as a wind > > up thinking toy with an infinite unwinding spring, or fixated on > this or > > that, or ignorant and blind, neurotic, out of control and so on. > > > > All of these and more can be seen and many of these and other have been > > said here to Anders as Anders appears through words and expressions. > > Anders also can be seen as that or THAT, which is indescribable, doing > > here what is always done, showing each appearance by Anders response a > > mirror that reflects what that appearance is capable of seeing, > > experiencing, helping to see with clarity, by calling up responses to > > Anders words. Those responses, private and unexpressed, represent what > > each appearance is at the moment and in those responses are the lessons > > to be learned and mainly in the ephemeral ever changing phantom Anders > > who can be seen as this or that or THAT. > > > > In private responses to others, that which is not expressed in words > > here, we see what is in the appearance clearly, if it is allowed. The > > written responses to Anders provide additional mirrors to see what > is in > > and what is not. > > Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that concept. > > /AL Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness that is aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all object are removed from awareness what is there? Lewis Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > >>In a message dated 2/21/05 2:56:34 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>Al: >I believe what buddhists call no-mind is the same as > > > >> > > > > awareness itself. > > > > > > > >>P: Al, I know whatever I say here will only stimulate more useless > > > > > > > > thinking > > > > > > > >>in you, and probably do little or no good, but for the sake of > > > > > > > > others let's > > > > > > > >> point out the following: > > > >>The belief that awareness is the same as no mind is as useful as the > > > > > > > > belief > > > > > > > >>that a unicorn is the same as a pegasus. That belief will not > > > > > > > > contribute to > > > > > > > >>give your brain a deep state of calmness, or give rest to your > > > > > > > > hyperactive > > > > > > > >>intellect. > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference between no-mind and mind is simply its kind of > content. > > > > Awareness trapped in an egoic sense creates an objectification of > > > > content called a " me " . The no-mind is simply unobstructed awareness > > > > where the object called me is no longer an object but simply a > part of > > > > object-less content. > > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > As you know, mind and no mind are concepts. They are pointers. > > > Object-less content is a concept. Awareness is a concept. Me is a > > > concept. Egoic sense is a concept. Objectification of content is a > > > conceptual process. Unobstructed awareness is a concept. These are > all > > > conceptual objects. All of these are pointers. These are used to > point > > > to the appearances in experience, whatever that experience is > > > conceptualized to be; thinking, feeling, sensing. All of it, is > > > conception. No appearance be described fully in any way. All > ultimately > > > is indescribable, indescribable. > > > > > > This leaves only the conceiver. The conceiver if it is conceived is a > > > concept. Just like these last two sentences, it is made up to point. > > Any > > > thing written is a conception, a manifestation, a stand in. > > > > > > Who or what does this writing? This conceiving? That is experiential > > and > > > not describable. There are millions of names, labels, descriptions > none > > > fit, none work, none suitable. None. > > > > > > For the sake of convenience, Some prefer not to use pronouns, still > > > others prefer pseudonyms, others their given name and so on, other > mix > > > it up (I like the mixing it up). It does not matter what name is > put to > > > it, it is not it and it does not matter. > > > > > > Those appearances who still experience a person in a name or pronoun > > > display ego and person hunting and changing behavior; hunting for > that > > > wily ego that is trying to trick or deceive or mess up so there > arises > > > suspicion of name and pronoun users making assertions as > assertions are > > > made, names signed and hunting done. There is nothing there. What is > > > found is what appears in the hunter's appearance and experienced. > > > Finding finds what it wants and what is seen is what is capable of > > being > > > seen by the appearance. Some see in the same appearance different > > > things. What finding is certain and not conceptual? It can be > humorous > > > how one appearance is apprehended in so many different ways and > what is > > > attempted modify it. We do as we are. > > > > > > Such indescribability does not prevent descriptions being made. It is > > > one aspect of living to do this. What peoples on earth have not done > > > this? It serves. It is used. The confusion has been and still is the > > > nature of conceiving and its effects for living when the conceptions > > are > > > believed and fixations and entanglements in them form and > consequences > > > for living. > > > > > > Does it matter that Anders thinks all day all the time in every way > > > possible about any thing that comes? Some appearances do that. And > they > > > do it with remarkable facility and to them we owe many things in the > > > history of knowledge making of all kinds. Anders can be seen as a > wind > > > up thinking toy with an infinite unwinding spring, or fixated on > > this or > > > that, or ignorant and blind, neurotic, out of control and so on. > > > > > > All of these and more can be seen and many of these and other have > been > > > said here to Anders as Anders appears through words and expressions. > > > Anders also can be seen as that or THAT, which is indescribable, > doing > > > here what is always done, showing each appearance by Anders > response a > > > mirror that reflects what that appearance is capable of seeing, > > > experiencing, helping to see with clarity, by calling up responses to > > > Anders words. Those responses, private and unexpressed, represent > what > > > each appearance is at the moment and in those responses are the > lessons > > > to be learned and mainly in the ephemeral ever changing phantom > Anders > > > who can be seen as this or that or THAT. > > > > > > In private responses to others, that which is not expressed in words > > > here, we see what is in the appearance clearly, if it is allowed. The > > > written responses to Anders provide additional mirrors to see what > > is in > > > and what is not. > > > > Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that concept. > > > > /AL > > Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness that is > aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of > awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of > awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all > object are removed from awareness what is there? > > Lewis > I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so there will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is aware of itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite variety is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote above if it is correct or not. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >>Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " >><anders_lindman> wrote: >> >>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>anders_lindman wrote: >>>> >>>>>Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In a message dated 2/21/05 2:56:34 AM, anders_lindman writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Al: >I believe what buddhists call no-mind is the same as >>>>>> >>>>>awareness itself. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>P: Al, I know whatever I say here will only stimulate more useless >>>>> >>>>>thinking >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>in you, and probably do little or no good, but for the sake of >>>>> >>>>>others let's >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>point out the following: >>>>>>The belief that awareness is the same as no mind is as useful >>>>> > as the > >>>>>belief >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>that a unicorn is the same as a pegasus. That belief will not >>>>> >>>>>contribute to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>give your brain a deep state of calmness, or give rest to your >>>>> >>>>>hyperactive >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>intellect. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The difference between no-mind and mind is simply its kind of >>>> >>content. >> >>>>>Awareness trapped in an egoic sense creates an objectification of >>>>>content called a " me " . The no-mind is simply unobstructed >>>> > awareness > >>>>>where the object called me is no longer an object but simply a >>>> >>part of >> >>>>>object-less content. >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi Anders, >>>> >>>>As you know, mind and no mind are concepts. They are pointers. >>>>Object-less content is a concept. Awareness is a concept. Me is a >>>>concept. Egoic sense is a concept. Objectification of content is a >>>>conceptual process. Unobstructed awareness is a concept. These are >>> >>all >> >>>>conceptual objects. All of these are pointers. These are used to >>> >>point >> >>>>to the appearances in experience, whatever that experience is >>>>conceptualized to be; thinking, feeling, sensing. All of it, is >>>>conception. No appearance be described fully in any way. All >>> >>ultimately >> >>>>is indescribable, indescribable. >>>> >>>>This leaves only the conceiver. The conceiver if it is conceived >>> > is a > >>>>concept. Just like these last two sentences, it is made up to point. >>> >>>Any >>> >>>>thing written is a conception, a manifestation, a stand in. >>>> >>>>Who or what does this writing? This conceiving? That is experiential >>> >>>and >>> >>>>not describable. There are millions of names, labels, descriptions >>> >>none >> >>>>fit, none work, none suitable. None. >>>> >>>>For the sake of convenience, Some prefer not to use pronouns, still >>>>others prefer pseudonyms, others their given name and so on, other >>> >>mix >> >>>>it up (I like the mixing it up). It does not matter what name is >>> >>put to >> >>>>it, it is not it and it does not matter. >>>> >>>>Those appearances who still experience a person in a name or >>> > pronoun > >>>>display ego and person hunting and changing behavior; hunting for >>> >>that >> >>>>wily ego that is trying to trick or deceive or mess up so there >>> >>arises >> >>>>suspicion of name and pronoun users making assertions as >>> >>assertions are >> >>>>made, names signed and hunting done. There is nothing there. >>> > What is > >>>>found is what appears in the hunter's appearance and experienced. >>>>Finding finds what it wants and what is seen is what is capable of >>> >>>being >>> >>>>seen by the appearance. Some see in the same appearance different >>>>things. What finding is certain and not conceptual? It can be >>> >>humorous >> >>>>how one appearance is apprehended in so many different ways and >>> >>what is >> >>>>attempted modify it. We do as we are. >>>> >>>>Such indescribability does not prevent descriptions being made. >>> > It is > >>>>one aspect of living to do this. What peoples on earth have not >>> > done > >>>>this? It serves. It is used. The confusion has been and still is >>> > the > >>>>nature of conceiving and its effects for living when the conceptions >>> >>>are >>> >>>>believed and fixations and entanglements in them form and >>> >>consequences >> >>>>for living. >>>> >>>>Does it matter that Anders thinks all day all the time in every way >>>>possible about any thing that comes? Some appearances do that. And >>> >>they >> >>>>do it with remarkable facility and to them we owe many things in >>> > the > >>>>history of knowledge making of all kinds. Anders can be seen as a >>> >>wind >> >>>>up thinking toy with an infinite unwinding spring, or fixated on >>> >>>this or >>> >>>>that, or ignorant and blind, neurotic, out of control and so on. >>>> >>>>All of these and more can be seen and many of these and other have >>> >>been >> >>>>said here to Anders as Anders appears through words and >>> > expressions. > >>>>Anders also can be seen as that or THAT, which is indescribable, >>> >>doing >> >>>>here what is always done, showing each appearance by Anders >>> >>response a >> >>>>mirror that reflects what that appearance is capable of seeing, >>>>experiencing, helping to see with clarity, by calling up >>> > responses to > >>>>Anders words. Those responses, private and unexpressed, represent >>> >>what >> >>>>each appearance is at the moment and in those responses are the >>> >>lessons >> >>>>to be learned and mainly in the ephemeral ever changing phantom >>> >>Anders >> >>>>who can be seen as this or that or THAT. >>>> >>>>In private responses to others, that which is not expressed in >>> > words > >>>>here, we see what is in the appearance clearly, if it is >>> > allowed. The > >>>>written responses to Anders provide additional mirrors to see what >>> >>>is in >>> >>>>and what is not. >>> >>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that >> > concept. > >>>/AL >> >>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness that is >>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of >>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of >>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all >>object are removed from awareness what is there? >> >>Lewis >> > > > I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so there > will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in > being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is aware of > itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite variety > is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can > appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. > > Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote > above if it is correct or not. > > /AL > Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always seems to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, however experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would be no awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in experience. You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit terminates infinite regression. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > >>Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > >><anders_lindman> wrote: > >> > >>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>anders_lindman wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>In a message dated 2/21/05 2:56:34 AM, anders_lindman writes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Al: >I believe what buddhists call no-mind is the same as > >>>>>> > >>>>>awareness itself. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>P: Al, I know whatever I say here will only stimulate more useless > >>>>> > >>>>>thinking > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>in you, and probably do little or no good, but for the sake of > >>>>> > >>>>>others let's > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>point out the following: > >>>>>>The belief that awareness is the same as no mind is as useful > >>>>> > > as the > > > >>>>>belief > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>that a unicorn is the same as a pegasus. That belief will not > >>>>> > >>>>>contribute to > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>give your brain a deep state of calmness, or give rest to your > >>>>> > >>>>>hyperactive > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>intellect. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>The difference between no-mind and mind is simply its kind of > >>>> > >>content. > >> > >>>>>Awareness trapped in an egoic sense creates an objectification of > >>>>>content called a " me " . The no-mind is simply unobstructed > >>>> > > awareness > > > >>>>>where the object called me is no longer an object but simply a > >>>> > >>part of > >> > >>>>>object-less content. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Hi Anders, > >>>> > >>>>As you know, mind and no mind are concepts. They are pointers. > >>>>Object-less content is a concept. Awareness is a concept. Me is a > >>>>concept. Egoic sense is a concept. Objectification of content is a > >>>>conceptual process. Unobstructed awareness is a concept. These are > >>> > >>all > >> > >>>>conceptual objects. All of these are pointers. These are used to > >>> > >>point > >> > >>>>to the appearances in experience, whatever that experience is > >>>>conceptualized to be; thinking, feeling, sensing. All of it, is > >>>>conception. No appearance be described fully in any way. All > >>> > >>ultimately > >> > >>>>is indescribable, indescribable. > >>>> > >>>>This leaves only the conceiver. The conceiver if it is conceived > >>> > > is a > > > >>>>concept. Just like these last two sentences, it is made up to point. > >>> > >>>Any > >>> > >>>>thing written is a conception, a manifestation, a stand in. > >>>> > >>>>Who or what does this writing? This conceiving? That is experiential > >>> > >>>and > >>> > >>>>not describable. There are millions of names, labels, descriptions > >>> > >>none > >> > >>>>fit, none work, none suitable. None. > >>>> > >>>>For the sake of convenience, Some prefer not to use pronouns, still > >>>>others prefer pseudonyms, others their given name and so on, other > >>> > >>mix > >> > >>>>it up (I like the mixing it up). It does not matter what name is > >>> > >>put to > >> > >>>>it, it is not it and it does not matter. > >>>> > >>>>Those appearances who still experience a person in a name or > >>> > > pronoun > > > >>>>display ego and person hunting and changing behavior; hunting for > >>> > >>that > >> > >>>>wily ego that is trying to trick or deceive or mess up so there > >>> > >>arises > >> > >>>>suspicion of name and pronoun users making assertions as > >>> > >>assertions are > >> > >>>>made, names signed and hunting done. There is nothing there. > >>> > > What is > > > >>>>found is what appears in the hunter's appearance and experienced. > >>>>Finding finds what it wants and what is seen is what is capable of > >>> > >>>being > >>> > >>>>seen by the appearance. Some see in the same appearance different > >>>>things. What finding is certain and not conceptual? It can be > >>> > >>humorous > >> > >>>>how one appearance is apprehended in so many different ways and > >>> > >>what is > >> > >>>>attempted modify it. We do as we are. > >>>> > >>>>Such indescribability does not prevent descriptions being made. > >>> > > It is > > > >>>>one aspect of living to do this. What peoples on earth have not > >>> > > done > > > >>>>this? It serves. It is used. The confusion has been and still is > >>> > > the > > > >>>>nature of conceiving and its effects for living when the conceptions > >>> > >>>are > >>> > >>>>believed and fixations and entanglements in them form and > >>> > >>consequences > >> > >>>>for living. > >>>> > >>>>Does it matter that Anders thinks all day all the time in every way > >>>>possible about any thing that comes? Some appearances do that. And > >>> > >>they > >> > >>>>do it with remarkable facility and to them we owe many things in > >>> > > the > > > >>>>history of knowledge making of all kinds. Anders can be seen as a > >>> > >>wind > >> > >>>>up thinking toy with an infinite unwinding spring, or fixated on > >>> > >>>this or > >>> > >>>>that, or ignorant and blind, neurotic, out of control and so on. > >>>> > >>>>All of these and more can be seen and many of these and other have > >>> > >>been > >> > >>>>said here to Anders as Anders appears through words and > >>> > > expressions. > > > >>>>Anders also can be seen as that or THAT, which is indescribable, > >>> > >>doing > >> > >>>>here what is always done, showing each appearance by Anders > >>> > >>response a > >> > >>>>mirror that reflects what that appearance is capable of seeing, > >>>>experiencing, helping to see with clarity, by calling up > >>> > > responses to > > > >>>>Anders words. Those responses, private and unexpressed, represent > >>> > >>what > >> > >>>>each appearance is at the moment and in those responses are the > >>> > >>lessons > >> > >>>>to be learned and mainly in the ephemeral ever changing phantom > >>> > >>Anders > >> > >>>>who can be seen as this or that or THAT. > >>>> > >>>>In private responses to others, that which is not expressed in > >>> > > words > > > >>>>here, we see what is in the appearance clearly, if it is > >>> > > allowed. The > > > >>>>written responses to Anders provide additional mirrors to see what > >>> > >>>is in > >>> > >>>>and what is not. > >>> > >>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that > >> > > concept. > > > >>>/AL > >> > >>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness that is > >>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of > >>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of > >>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all > >>object are removed from awareness what is there? > >> > >>Lewis > >> > > > > > > I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so there > > will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in > > being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is aware of > > itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite variety > > is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can > > appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. > > > > Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote > > above if it is correct or not. > > > > /AL > > > > Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always seems > to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, however > experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would be no > awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in experience. > > You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit > terminates infinite regression. > > > Lewis If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that >>>> >>>concept. >>> >>> >>>>>/AL >>>> >>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness that is >>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of >>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of >>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all >>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? >>>> >>>>Lewis >>>> >>> >>> >>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so there >>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in >>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is aware of >>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite variety >>> is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can >>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. >>> >>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote >>>above if it is correct or not. >>> >>>/AL >>> >> >>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always seems >>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, > > however > >>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would be no >>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in > > experience. > >>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit >>terminates infinite regression. >> >> >>Lewis > > > If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that > awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We > are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of > it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if > awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is > unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present > moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. > > /AL Are you then the unmoved mover? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > >>>>> > >>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that > >>>> > >>>concept. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>/AL > >>>> > >>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness that is > >>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of > >>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of > >>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all > >>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? > >>>> > >>>>Lewis > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so there > >>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in > >>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is aware of > >>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite variety > >>> is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can > >>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. > >>> > >>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote > >>>above if it is correct or not. > >>> > >>>/AL > >>> > >> > >>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always seems > >>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, > > > > however > > > >>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would be no > >>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in > > > > experience. > > > >>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit > >>terminates infinite regression. > >> > >> > >>Lewis > > > > > > If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that > > awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We > > are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of > > it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if > > awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is > > unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present > > moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. > > > > /AL > > Are you then the unmoved mover? > > Lewis My theory is that awareness is still and that there is only one awareness. With this idea, my awareness and your awareness are the same awareness. This one awareness is what canstantly draws out complexity out of chaos and this gives the appearance of movement. In this way we can say that awareness is the unmoved mover. But that is only my speculation at the moment. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > >>>>> > >>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that > >>>> > >>>concept. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>/AL > >>>> > >>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness that is > >>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of > >>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of > >>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all > >>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? > >>>> > >>>>Lewis > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so there > >>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in > >>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is aware of > >>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite variety > >>> is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can > >>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. > >>> > >>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote > >>>above if it is correct or not. > >>> > >>>/AL > >>> > >> > >>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always seems > >>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, > > > > however > > > >>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would be no > >>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in > > > > experience. > > > >>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit > >>terminates infinite regression. > >> > >> > >>Lewis > > > > > > If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that > > awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We > > are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of > > it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if > > awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is > > unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present > > moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. > > > > /AL > > Are you then the unmoved mover? > > Lewis PS. Contemporary mainstream science does not have this view but this idea is similar to the same view many mystical traditions have. The difference is that while I am thinking about this idea, many mystics claim to know it directly. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >> >>anders_lindman wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that >>>>>> >>>>>concept. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>/AL >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness >>>>> > that is > >>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of >>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of >>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all >>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? >>>>>> >>>>>>Lewis >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so there >>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in >>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is aware of >>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite variety >>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can >>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. >>>>> >>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote >>>>>above if it is correct or not. >>>>> >>>>>/AL >>>>> >>>> >>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always >>> > seems > >>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, >>> >>>however >>> >>> >>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would >>> > be no > >>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in >>> >>>experience. >>> >>> >>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit >>>>terminates infinite regression. >>>> >>>> >>>>Lewis >>> >>> >>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that >>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We >>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of >>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if >>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is >>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present >>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. >>> >>>/AL >> >>Are you then the unmoved mover? >> >>Lewis > > > My theory is that awareness is still and that there is only one > awareness. With this idea, my awareness and your awareness are the > same awareness. This one awareness is what canstantly draws out > complexity out of chaos and this gives the appearance of movement. In > this way we can say that awareness is the unmoved mover. But that is > only my speculation at the moment. > > /AL Anders, If we stay within theory, within thought, language and concept, then is it safe to say that what is written above obviates considerations of the realm of a-theistic Buddhism and lies somewhere in the realms described by theologians, and philosophers as spiritual or absolute monism, pantheism, some forms of monotheism, and possibly panentheism? Are these theories and perspectives familiar to you? And if they are, do you favor, in theory, one or another? And can it be said in theory that the awareness spoken about above draws out complexity and also expresses in the appearances with the appearances manifesting that expression in various ways? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >> >>anders_lindman wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that >>>>>> >>>>>concept. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>/AL >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness >>>>> > that is > >>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of >>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of >>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all >>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? >>>>>> >>>>>>Lewis >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so there >>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in >>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is aware of >>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite variety >>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can >>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. >>>>> >>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote >>>>>above if it is correct or not. >>>>> >>>>>/AL >>>>> >>>> >>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always >>> > seems > >>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, >>> >>>however >>> >>> >>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would >>> > be no > >>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in >>> >>>experience. >>> >>> >>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit >>>>terminates infinite regression. >>>> >>>> >>>>Lewis >>> >>> >>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that >>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We >>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of >>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if >>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is >>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present >>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. >>> >>>/AL >> >>Are you then the unmoved mover? >> >>Lewis > > > PS. Contemporary mainstream science does not have this view but this > idea is similar to the same view many mystical traditions have. The > difference is that while I am thinking about this idea, many mystics > claim to know it directly. > > /AL Is it possible to know this directly? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > >> > >>anders_lindman wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that > >>>>>> > >>>>>concept. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>/AL > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness > >>>>> > > that is > > > >>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of > >>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of > >>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all > >>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Lewis > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so there > >>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in > >>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is aware of > >>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite variety > >>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can > >>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. > >>>>> > >>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote > >>>>>above if it is correct or not. > >>>>> > >>>>>/AL > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always > >>> > > seems > > > >>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, > >>> > >>>however > >>> > >>> > >>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would > >>> > > be no > > > >>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in > >>> > >>>experience. > >>> > >>> > >>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit > >>>>terminates infinite regression. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Lewis > >>> > >>> > >>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that > >>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We > >>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of > >>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if > >>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is > >>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present > >>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. > >>> > >>>/AL > >> > >>Are you then the unmoved mover? > >> > >>Lewis > > > > > > My theory is that awareness is still and that there is only one > > awareness. With this idea, my awareness and your awareness are the > > same awareness. This one awareness is what canstantly draws out > > complexity out of chaos and this gives the appearance of movement. In > > this way we can say that awareness is the unmoved mover. But that is > > only my speculation at the moment. > > > > /AL > > > Anders, > > If we stay within theory, within thought, language and concept, then is > it safe to say that what is written above obviates considerations of the > realm of a-theistic Buddhism and lies somewhere in the realms described > by theologians, and philosophers as spiritual or absolute monism, > pantheism, some forms of monotheism, and possibly panentheism? > > Are these theories and perspectives familiar to you? > > And if they are, do you favor, in theory, one or another? > > And can it be said in theory that the awareness spoken about above draws > out complexity and also expresses in the appearances with the > appearances manifesting that expression in various ways? > > Lewis Hi Lewis, This view can probably be described as a form of monism in that awareness drawing out complexity can be seen as one system. Or, to quote Meister Eckhart: " Only God can say I am " - together with the Gospel of Thomas: " Pick up a stone and you will find me [Christ/God] there " . Complexity can be described as information that forms holons. A holon is itself a whole and simultaneously a part of some other whole. For example, a molecule in a cell is a holon, and a cell is a holon on a higher level. If awareness is the capacity to form holons, then it means that awareness implicit is in the holons themselves. The ability to sort out order/complexity from chaos is implicit a part of the resulting order/complexity. This ability could be called free will. Free will is what chooses complexity out of chaos. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > >> > >>anders_lindman wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that > >>>>>> > >>>>>concept. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>/AL > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness > >>>>> > > that is > > > >>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of > >>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of > >>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all > >>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Lewis > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so there > >>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in > >>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is aware of > >>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite variety > >>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can > >>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. > >>>>> > >>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote > >>>>>above if it is correct or not. > >>>>> > >>>>>/AL > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always > >>> > > seems > > > >>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, > >>> > >>>however > >>> > >>> > >>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would > >>> > > be no > > > >>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in > >>> > >>>experience. > >>> > >>> > >>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit > >>>>terminates infinite regression. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Lewis > >>> > >>> > >>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that > >>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We > >>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of > >>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if > >>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is > >>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present > >>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. > >>> > >>>/AL > >> > >>Are you then the unmoved mover? > >> > >>Lewis > > > > > > PS. Contemporary mainstream science does not have this view but this > > idea is similar to the same view many mystical traditions have. The > > difference is that while I am thinking about this idea, many mystics > > claim to know it directly. > > > > /AL > > Is it possible to know this directly? > > Lewis Maybe if we follow the right advice: " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing but consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 This means moving closer to the source: unfathomable awareness. So in the form of a play the individual self has to do things, but in reality awareness has the tractor beam already on, drawing the separate self closer to itself. And if this is true, then another interesting observation is: if awareness is drawing individuals closer to itself, then humanity as a whole is also drawn closer to the source. Then evolution (the result of awareness drawing ever higher forms of complexity out of the unmanifested) will create a new higher holon (a new structure for society and culture that embrances and transcends old structures [today's modern/post-modern society]) where humans will be parts/wholes (holons) of. To know awareness directly would then only be possible after a leap in evolution in an indvidual or in humanity as a whole. Sage who have reached direct knowledge of awareness are then only spear-heads, pioneers into a higher state of evolution. The really interesting thing would be to see _all_ of humanity making this leap. A sage on his or her own is not really an integral awakening. An integral awakening is when the entire human society takes this leap as a whole (holon). /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >> >>anders_lindman wrote: >> >>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>anders_lindman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>concept. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>/AL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness >>>>>>> >>>that is >>> >>> >>>>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of >>>>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of >>>>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all >>>>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Lewis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so >>>>>> > there > >>>>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in >>>>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is >>>>>> > aware of > >>>>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite >>>>>> > variety > >>>>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can >>>>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote >>>>>>>above if it is correct or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>/AL >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always >>>>> >>>seems >>> >>> >>>>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, >>>>> >>>>>however >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would >>>>> >>>be no >>> >>> >>>>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in >>>>> >>>>>experience. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit >>>>>>terminates infinite regression. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Lewis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that >>>>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We >>>>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of >>>>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if >>>>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is >>>>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present >>>>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. >>>>> >>>>>/AL >>>> >>>>Are you then the unmoved mover? >>>> >>>>Lewis >>> >>> >>>My theory is that awareness is still and that there is only one >>>awareness. With this idea, my awareness and your awareness are the >>>same awareness. This one awareness is what canstantly draws out >>>complexity out of chaos and this gives the appearance of movement. In >>>this way we can say that awareness is the unmoved mover. But that is >>>only my speculation at the moment. >>> >>>/AL >> >> >>Anders, >> >>If we stay within theory, within thought, language and concept, then is >>it safe to say that what is written above obviates considerations of > > the > >>realm of a-theistic Buddhism and lies somewhere in the realms described >>by theologians, and philosophers as spiritual or absolute monism, >>pantheism, some forms of monotheism, and possibly panentheism? >> >>Are these theories and perspectives familiar to you? >> >>And if they are, do you favor, in theory, one or another? >> >>And can it be said in theory that the awareness spoken about above > > draws > >>out complexity and also expresses in the appearances with the >>appearances manifesting that expression in various ways? >> >>Lewis > > > Hi Lewis, > > This view can probably be described as a form of monism in that > awareness drawing out complexity can be seen as one system. Or, to > quote Meister Eckhart: " Only God can say I am " - together with the > Gospel of Thomas: " Pick up a stone and you will find me [Christ/God] > there " . > > Complexity can be described as information that forms holons. A holon > is itself a whole and simultaneously a part of some other whole. For > example, a molecule in a cell is a holon, and a cell is a holon on a > higher level. If awareness is the capacity to form holons, then it > means that awareness implicit is in the holons themselves. The ability > to sort out order/complexity from chaos is implicit a part of the > resulting order/complexity. This ability could be called free will. > Free will is what chooses complexity out of chaos. > > /AL Thank you Anders. And what about expression in the human appearances with the appearances manifesting that expression in various ways? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >> >>anders_lindman wrote: >> >>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>anders_lindman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>concept. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>/AL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness >>>>>>> >>>that is >>> >>> >>>>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of >>>>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of >>>>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all >>>>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Lewis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so >>>>>> > there > >>>>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in >>>>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is >>>>>> > aware of > >>>>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite >>>>>> > variety > >>>>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can >>>>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote >>>>>>>above if it is correct or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>/AL >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always >>>>> >>>seems >>> >>> >>>>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, >>>>> >>>>>however >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would >>>>> >>>be no >>> >>> >>>>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in >>>>> >>>>>experience. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit >>>>>>terminates infinite regression. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Lewis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that >>>>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We >>>>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of >>>>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if >>>>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is >>>>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present >>>>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. >>>>> >>>>>/AL >>>> >>>>Are you then the unmoved mover? >>>> >>>>Lewis >>> >>> >>>PS. Contemporary mainstream science does not have this view but this >>>idea is similar to the same view many mystical traditions have. The >>>difference is that while I am thinking about this idea, many mystics >>>claim to know it directly. >>> >>>/AL >> >>Is it possible to know this directly? >> >>Lewis > > > Maybe if we follow the right advice: > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, > unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing but > consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 Yes. > > This means moving closer to the source: unfathomable awareness. So in > the form of a play the individual self has to do things, but in > reality awareness has the tractor beam already on, drawing the > separate self closer to itself. > > And if this is true, then another interesting observation is: if > awareness is drawing individuals closer to itself, then humanity as a > whole is also drawn closer to the source. Then evolution (the result > of awareness drawing ever higher forms of complexity out of the > unmanifested) will create a new higher holon (a new structure for > society and culture that embrances and transcends old structures > [today's modern/post-modern society]) where humans will be > parts/wholes (holons) of. > > To know awareness directly would then only be possible after a leap in > evolution in an indvidual or in humanity as a whole. Sage who have > reached direct knowledge of awareness are then only spear-heads, > pioneers into a higher state of evolution. The really interesting > thing would be to see _all_ of humanity making this leap. A sage on > his or her own is not really an integral awakening. An integral > awakening is when the entire human society takes this leap as a whole > (holon). > > /AL This answers the question about expression. Thank you Anders. Your last paragraph is silent in me as it is and perhaps a response may come after a while or not. At the moment, all is quiet..... Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > >> > >>anders_lindman wrote: > >> > >>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>anders_lindman wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>concept. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>/AL > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness > >>>>>>> > >>>that is > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of > >>>>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of > >>>>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or rather all > >>>>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Lewis > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so > >>>>>> > > there > > > >>>>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience as in > >>>>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is > >>>>>> > > aware of > > > >>>>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite > >>>>>> > > variety > > > >>>>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite regression can > >>>>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I wrote > >>>>>>>above if it is correct or not. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>/AL > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always > >>>>> > >>>seems > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, > >>>>> > >>>>>however > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would > >>>>> > >>>be no > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in > >>>>> > >>>>>experience. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit > >>>>>>terminates infinite regression. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Lewis > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that > >>>>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. We > >>>>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our awareness of > >>>>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if > >>>>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is > >>>>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present > >>>>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. > >>>>> > >>>>>/AL > >>>> > >>>>Are you then the unmoved mover? > >>>> > >>>>Lewis > >>> > >>> > >>>My theory is that awareness is still and that there is only one > >>>awareness. With this idea, my awareness and your awareness are the > >>>same awareness. This one awareness is what canstantly draws out > >>>complexity out of chaos and this gives the appearance of movement. In > >>>this way we can say that awareness is the unmoved mover. But that is > >>>only my speculation at the moment. > >>> > >>>/AL > >> > >> > >>Anders, > >> > >>If we stay within theory, within thought, language and concept, then is > >>it safe to say that what is written above obviates considerations of > > > > the > > > >>realm of a-theistic Buddhism and lies somewhere in the realms described > >>by theologians, and philosophers as spiritual or absolute monism, > >>pantheism, some forms of monotheism, and possibly panentheism? > >> > >>Are these theories and perspectives familiar to you? > >> > >>And if they are, do you favor, in theory, one or another? > >> > >>And can it be said in theory that the awareness spoken about above > > > > draws > > > >>out complexity and also expresses in the appearances with the > >>appearances manifesting that expression in various ways? > >> > >>Lewis > > > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > This view can probably be described as a form of monism in that > > awareness drawing out complexity can be seen as one system. Or, to > > quote Meister Eckhart: " Only God can say I am " - together with the > > Gospel of Thomas: " Pick up a stone and you will find me [Christ/God] > > there " . > > > > Complexity can be described as information that forms holons. A holon > > is itself a whole and simultaneously a part of some other whole. For > > example, a molecule in a cell is a holon, and a cell is a holon on a > > higher level. If awareness is the capacity to form holons, then it > > means that awareness implicit is in the holons themselves. The ability > > to sort out order/complexity from chaos is implicit a part of the > > resulting order/complexity. This ability could be called free will. > > Free will is what chooses complexity out of chaos. > > > > /AL > > > Thank you Anders. > > And what about expression in the human appearances with the appearances > manifesting that expression in various ways? > > Lewis Awareness knows itself as complexity and as the creator of complexity. One form of complexity is the human body and mind, which is a part of a larger whole called human society. Awareness is only aware of complexity. Randomness, noise and chaos is never experienced because that is what is rejected by awarness. Every single experience in the universe is pure complexity. Random thermal noise in electronic circuits are not random at all. Infinite complexity may appear as randomness from a limited perspective. Natural disasters may appear as chaos from a limited perspective. Cancer in the human body may appear as cells making wrong decisions. Awareness never makes a wrong choice. How come then people are flawed, often downright evil? How come childern are born with handicap? What about wars? Terrorists? Famine? Suicides? AIDS? I believe what we see here on earth is only complexity reforming itself into a higher state of being. When a caterpillar dissolves inside its cocoon it looks like a mess inside, but the dissolving caterpillar is to become a beautiful butterfly. Then we might think: but why must humanity suffer so? But think again. What humanity? One awareness. One humanity. One soul. What about people who are dead? What dead people? One awareness. One awareness only. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: Hey AL, what's cookin'? > Awareness knows itself as complexity and as the creator of complexity. Oh... that's obvious... brain cells... > One form of complexity is the human body and mind, which is a part of > a larger whole called human society. It's not so much that everything (read: EVERYTHING) you write, hour after hour, day after day (just like AC, have you met AC?) is a load of semi-smoldering ashes (from those cooked brain cells, no doubt) amounting to " nothing at all " (useful, that is), it's that you (and AC, have you met AC?) don't seem to " catch on " to that semi-smoldering FACT (even when people point it out to you) and cauterize your wounds. " Which wounds? " you ask. To wit: > Awareness is only aware of complexity. Randomness, noise and > chaos is never experienced because that is what is rejected > by awarness. No it isn't!! And, even if it was " all that " you wouldn't be able to mention it. Yet, with " all that " , you continue to apply the scalpel to your own gray matter, insistent on being just another " poor soul " dying on the vine, from the slow death of a thousand cuts. Ho hummmmmmmmmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > So close, yet so far away... or So close, but no cigar... Sound even vaguely familiar? > > If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that > awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. True. Consciousness is only in the moment. >We are aware of the world now. Well, YOU may be vaguely aware of the sensations, feelings, and resulting thoughts that swarm around you - right now, as you're sitting there reading this - but " awareness of the world " , come on now, you're not even >>vaguely<< aware of the world. You're not even >>vaguely<< aware of yourself, sitting there reading this sentence, nor are you even >>remotely vaguely<< aware of the forces causing the sensations, feelings and resulting thoughts that swarm around you, that finally bubble up to the surface and ooze uncontrollably from those 1000 open wounds, up there between the ears. > The world may move, but our awareness of > it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really > know if awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see > that it is unmoved from the present moment, and all we know > is in the present moment. All we know about Aristotle is in > the present moment. Consciousness and Thoughts are out of sync, except under 3 quite specific conditions... Know which they are? Can you describe them, provide graphic examples? All teachings, methods, practices known to man, consist of the attempt to bring thoughts in sync with consciousness. Bar none. Why? Because under all ordinary conditions, thoughts and consciousness MUST REMAIN out of sync. Do you know why that is? Try to know why THAT is, instead of continually theorizing about that which you can NOT know a damn thing, and you might discover the 3rd condition referred to above. But, I guarantee you one thing: shooting from the hip, as you continually do, hour after hour, day after interminable day, is NOT the 3rd condition of which I refer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Hey AL, what's cookin'? > > > Awareness knows itself as complexity and as the creator of > complexity. > > Oh... that's obvious... brain cells... > > > One form of complexity is the human body and mind, which is a part > of > > a larger whole called human society. > > It's not so much that everything (read: EVERYTHING) you write, hour > after hour, day after day (just like AC, have you met AC?) is a load > of semi-smoldering ashes (from those cooked brain cells, no doubt) > amounting to " nothing at all " (useful, that is), it's that you (and > AC, have you met AC?) don't seem to " catch on " to that > semi-smoldering FACT (even when people point it out to you) and > cauterize your wounds. > > " Which wounds? " you ask. > > To wit: > > Awareness is only aware of complexity. Randomness, noise and > > chaos is never experienced because that is what is rejected > > by awarness. > > No it isn't!! > And, even if it was " all that " you wouldn't be able to mention it. > Yet, with " all that " , you continue to apply the scalpel to your own > gray matter, insistent on being just another " poor soul " dying on the > vine, from the slow death of a thousand cuts. > > Ho hummmmmmmmmmm. Oh no. I cannot die. I am awareness. Listen to Nisargadatta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > So close, yet so far away... > or > So close, but no cigar... > > Sound even vaguely familiar? > > > > > If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that > > awareness never moves a single inch away from the present moment. > > True. > Consciousness is only in the moment. > > >We are aware of the world now. > > Well, YOU may be vaguely aware of the sensations, feelings, and > resulting thoughts that swarm around you - right now, as you're > sitting there reading this - but " awareness of the world " , come on > now, you're not even >>vaguely<< aware of the world. > > You're not even >>vaguely<< aware of yourself, sitting there reading > this sentence, nor are you even >>remotely vaguely<< aware of the > forces causing the sensations, feelings and resulting thoughts that > swarm around you, that finally bubble up to the surface and ooze > uncontrollably from those 1000 open wounds, up there between the ears. > > > > The world may move, but our awareness of > > it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really > > know if awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see > > that it is unmoved from the present moment, and all we know > > is in the present moment. All we know about Aristotle is in > > the present moment. > > Consciousness and Thoughts are out of sync, except under 3 quite > specific conditions... Know which they are? Can you describe them, > provide graphic examples? When thought touches awareness, then there is a union. Forget about conditions like sleep and death, they are not real. > > All teachings, methods, practices known to man, consist of the > attempt to bring thoughts in sync with consciousness. Bar none. > > Why? Because under all ordinary conditions, thoughts and > consciousness MUST REMAIN out of sync. Do you know why that is? Consciousness is aware of thought, not the other way around, so that is a kind of out of sync I agree. > > Try to know why THAT is, instead of continually theorizing about that > which you can NOT know a damn thing, and you might discover the 3rd > condition referred to above. > > But, I guarantee you one thing: shooting from the hip, as you > continually do, hour after hour, day after interminable day, is NOT > the 3rd condition of which I refer. I never miss one single target! But I am a bit curious here. What do you mean by the 3rd condition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >> >>anders_lindman wrote: >> >>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>anders_lindman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> >>>> > wrote: > >>>>> >>>>>>anders_lindman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>concept. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>/AL >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness >>>>>>>>> >>>>>that is >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of >>>>>>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of >>>>>>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or >>>>>>>>> > rather all > >>>>>>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Lewis >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so >>>>>>>> >>>there >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience >>>>>>>> > as in > >>>>>>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is >>>>>>>> >>>aware of >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite >>>>>>>> >>>variety >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite >>>>>>>> > regression can > >>>>>>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I >>>>>>>> > wrote > >>>>>>>>>above if it is correct or not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>/AL >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always >>>>>>> >>>>>seems >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>however >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would >>>>>>> >>>>>be no >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in >>>>>>> >>>>>>>experience. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit >>>>>>>>terminates infinite regression. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Lewis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that >>>>>>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present >>>>>> > moment. We > >>>>>>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our >>>>>> > awareness of > >>>>>>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if >>>>>>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is >>>>>>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present >>>>>>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>/AL >>>>>> >>>>>>Are you then the unmoved mover? >>>>>> >>>>>>Lewis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>My theory is that awareness is still and that there is only one >>>>>awareness. With this idea, my awareness and your awareness are the >>>>>same awareness. This one awareness is what canstantly draws out >>>>>complexity out of chaos and this gives the appearance of movement. In >>>>>this way we can say that awareness is the unmoved mover. But that is >>>>>only my speculation at the moment. >>>>> >>>>>/AL >>>> >>>> >>>>Anders, >>>> >>>>If we stay within theory, within thought, language and concept, >>> > then is > >>>>it safe to say that what is written above obviates considerations of >>> >>>the >>> >>> >>>>realm of a-theistic Buddhism and lies somewhere in the realms >>> > described > >>>>by theologians, and philosophers as spiritual or absolute monism, >>>>pantheism, some forms of monotheism, and possibly panentheism? >>>> >>>>Are these theories and perspectives familiar to you? >>>> >>>>And if they are, do you favor, in theory, one or another? >>>> >>>>And can it be said in theory that the awareness spoken about above >>> >>>draws >>> >>> >>>>out complexity and also expresses in the appearances with the >>>>appearances manifesting that expression in various ways? >>>> >>>>Lewis >>> >>> >>>Hi Lewis, >>> >>>This view can probably be described as a form of monism in that >>>awareness drawing out complexity can be seen as one system. Or, to >>>quote Meister Eckhart: " Only God can say I am " - together with the >>>Gospel of Thomas: " Pick up a stone and you will find me [Christ/God] >>>there " . >>> >>>Complexity can be described as information that forms holons. A holon >>>is itself a whole and simultaneously a part of some other whole. For >>>example, a molecule in a cell is a holon, and a cell is a holon on a >>>higher level. If awareness is the capacity to form holons, then it >>>means that awareness implicit is in the holons themselves. The ability >>>to sort out order/complexity from chaos is implicit a part of the >>>resulting order/complexity. This ability could be called free will. >>>Free will is what chooses complexity out of chaos. >>> >>>/AL >> >> >>Thank you Anders. >> >>And what about expression in the human appearances with the appearances >>manifesting that expression in various ways? >> >>Lewis > > > Awareness knows itself as complexity and as the creator of complexity. > One form of complexity is the human body and mind, which is a part of > a larger whole called human society. Awareness is only aware of > complexity. Randomness, noise and chaos is never experienced because > that is what is rejected by awarness. Every single experience in the > universe is pure complexity. Random thermal noise in electronic > circuits are not random at all. Infinite complexity may appear as > randomness from a limited perspective. Natural disasters may appear as > chaos from a limited perspective. Cancer in the human body may appear > as cells making wrong decisions. Awareness never makes a wrong choice. > > How come then people are flawed, often downright evil? How come > childern are born with handicap? What about wars? Terrorists? Famine? > Suicides? AIDS? > > I believe what we see here on earth is only complexity reforming > itself into a higher state of being. When a caterpillar dissolves > inside its cocoon it looks like a mess inside, but the dissolving > caterpillar is to become a beautiful butterfly. Then we might think: > but why must humanity suffer so? But think again. What humanity? One > awareness. One humanity. One soul. What about people who are dead? > What dead people? One awareness. One awareness only. > > /AL Silence again Anders. it will take time to drink this ocean, to be experienced. A few questions on chaos. Is chaos, as a process (not state), only to be seen as disordered and destructive especially when considered alone? Considered with all, does it not appear to allow and contribute to re-formations and constructions through breaking up? Is not war, an enormously complicated set of responses to imbalances of all kinds, chaos and part of it all? Does awareness reject this? Does awareness not participate in this in some way? How can it not? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Silence again Anders. it will take time to drink this ocean, to be experienced. Don't let it interfere with your daily dose of mental masturbation. " Drink this ocean " , may be a clever/poetic way of saying " I need to think about this some more " , which is just a way the mind uses to distract itself... yet again... with useless mind activity, covering up the glaring fact that it hasn't a clue, but " I'm going to work on it! " . (BUT, poets and plagiarists and prestidigitateurs need something to distract the audience, don't they?) Hey, L: what's the difference between a physical male sex organ, and a " penis " ? Or, if that one stumps you, how about masturbation, and " mental masturbation. " (You could always drink that ocean, if you've got a few spare lifetimes.) 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.