Are you going to Vanity Faire............?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

> > " Vanity, vanity! Said the preacher, All is vanity " The Old

> Testament.

> >

> > To think we own anything is vanity. To believe we own a body,

> > a mind, consciousness, beauty, wisdom, to even think we own our

> > faults is vanity. The owner of tangibles and intangibles (the

> person)

> > is a legal, social. Linguistic fiction. No more real than a

> corporation.

> > A person is a useful misunderstanding of sensory data. Only the

> > sense of existing moment by moment is there, and on that tenuous

> screen

> > memory projects that great epic movie, that ticket office

> blockbuster

> > called " Me and My Life. "

>

>

> sam: YOU/consciousness own it, are it, and operate through it.

> Whether you are an ego state or not, it is all YOU. You can deny

> it, refuse it, fight against it, wrap words around it by saying

your

> non-dualist and know that this idea is separated, but actually,

> eventually, you may accept that you are YOU/IT/Consciousness.

There

> is nothing else but YOU -- with all IT's dream stuff, IT's body

> stuff and that All that is is only YOU -- consciousness. That

there

> is no division, although you continuously obsessively chat about

> this division as being not real, the fact is, you don't believe it,

> because you still insist on saying that you are not IT. If you are

> not IT/consciousness in all it's nothingness and it's dreamness and

> it's somethingness and complexities thereof, then what are you? As

> the movie called I Heart Huckabees says, " How can I not be me? "

> Whatever you are YOU are consciousness - darkly, brightly,

fighting,

> loving, screaming, singing --- IT's All You. Perhaps if you,

> toombaru, etc, accepted that you are IT then you would have Nothing

> left to fight about. Then perhaps you would accept that YOU are

> all of the little bodies typing. But cleverly you focus on saying

> that there is no one typing. That's not the point. The point is

> that consciousness is having an experience (who cares if it's an

> illusory one?) and IT's ALL just fine. A person is a useful

> understanding of YOU data.

>

> Yes, the sense of existing moment by moment is there. You sense it

> as a fight which must reject things that are illusory by saying

they

> don't exist. Some sense it by peace in accepting that They/IT IS

> the illusory and the non-illusory and anything/everything/nothing

in

> between, up/down/sideways and creates a perception of

> up/down/sideways just to sense it all. Consciousness is funny that

> way. Consciousness does what it likes/wants/chooses and hence

> there's a Pete, a Toombaru, a Sam, an Al and it doesn't matter if

> you perceive it as a fragment because it really is not. and you

> will not know that because you are so busy fighting against what

you

> are by fighting about what you are not. And yet, you are it all -

> Consciousness. If you accept - then you accept All that You Are

and

> flow in and out, around and through the dream - or not. As you

> (gasp) choose based on what you (gasp) decide. You don't believe

> you can do that, and so you remain not doing that. If you accepted

> that YOU could then you wouldn't remain in suffering.....YOU'D

> choose/decide differently....and in that choosing it would all be

> fine. IT doesn't care if it's a dream...that's where you get

> tangled up, in the dream and identification of illusion. Pete, if

> you truly were in the moment, this moment, you would know that, and

> YOU wouldn't fight against what you are, rather pick and choose and

> release and let go of things back into the void of nothingness, or

> conversely create and choose and pick from the void of nothingness -

 

> as YOUR consciousness imagines, (and there is only YOUR's).

>

>

> >

> > Of course, a vain person isn't going to agree with this. A vain

> person loves

> > the illusion of possessing a pretty face, a wonderful mind, a

> realized self.

> > Never mind if the picture is 20 years old, that was her face

then,

> and

> > that somehow is still her, she thinks. And on seeing her

picture

> other vain

> >

> > people (people deluded by ownership) fall for the trick that they

> saw her,

> > when they only saw some pixels on a screen.

> >

> > Pete

> >

> >

>

>

>

> sam: of course a person who really likes their illusion of what

> their doing is not going to agree with this because they love love

> the chat of non-reality and the never-realized self. There's

> nothing wrong with it - even in rejecting that this is what you do,

> rather than accepting that this is what you do as you type and yet

> speak with a forked tongue. I don't care to speak with a fork

> tongue becuz there's nothing to deny or reject -- only to accept as

> I/consciousness in this moment. That is enough.>>

 

Encore! Encore!