Guest guest Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/8/2006 8:52:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> > Re: Making Realization Steady. / Silver. > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@h...> wrote: > > > > Yes. And what happens to the experiencer when the experience of > > peace (let us call it Advaita instead) vanishes? Where does > > the " experiencer in the background " go? Back to the foreground, of > > course, awaiting for the moment when the experience of Advaita > > returns. > > > > Advaita transcends the illusoriness of all experience. It has no ego > > with which to experience Itself. > > > > " Silver " > > > > > 'Experiencer' is ALWAYS... Real! > > It Never ceases! > > > > > What does the experiencer experience? Thought, feeling, perception, all in a > framework of space and time? These are illusions. There is only one thing. > There cannot be an experiencer experiencing something. > > This is why the nothingness is terrifying. There is no experience, and yet > there is existence. This is only a problem until the experiencer recognizes > that it has vanished along with the illusion. Then there is just Being. > > Phil > Experiencer doesn't need to experience anything in order to exist. just as the 'thinker' doesn't need to 'think' to exist... Just as the Screen doesn't need pictures in order of the screen to exist... Screen can [and does] exist fully without any pictures... .....but, the pictures need screen in order to exist. ..... Being, Consciousness, Void, Nothing, Space, God, Self... are just names... there is Only One Experiencer, only one Thinker All the While! .... 'ego', 'mind' are just the Self Created veils on this One Reality... they have no real existence... and, can experience or think... Nothing on their Own! To attribute " reality " of 'thinking' or 'experince' to them is an Error! .... Ego itself is a... 'thought'! .... PS --- If possible, please share your OWN experience! If possible, please tell us how it is in... your own Life! Tell us... how it is... Right Now! Tell us... how it is... as you read and answer this Message! Tell us... when and how... it changes! Tell us... why it is Not [if it is... Not] that way... Right Now! .... Is there an 'experiencer' [in you... as you] .... Right Now? Is there a 'thinker' [in you... as you] .... Right Now? 'Who' is this... thinker, experiencer? .... and, " who are you? " .... Has IT ever really disappeared? If yes... how did 'you' Know That? .... [Also tell us... if it is 'disappeared' Right Now? If not... why not? When, how and why... it disappears? And, how do " you " Know That? ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming Re: Making Realization Steady. / Phil > 'Experiencer' is ALWAYS... Real! > > It Never ceases! > > > > > What does the experiencer experience? Thought, feeling, perception, all in a > framework of space and time? These are illusions. There is only one thing. > There cannot be an experiencer experiencing something. > > This is why the nothingness is terrifying. There is no experience, and yet > there is existence. This is only a problem until the experiencer recognizes > that it has vanished along with the illusion. Then there is just Being. > > Phil > Experiencer doesn't need to experience anything in order to exist. Phil: Of course it does. What is the meaning of an experiencer that never experiences? I think you know better than that. Existence exists. You only call it an experiencer because you can't imagine existing without experiencing. The experiencer is ego. Do you think the experiencer will ever dissolve if you don't believe it's possible? If possible, please share your OWN experience! Phil: I already described my situation when this topic began. The experiencer has not left. If it had, I could not describe it as an experience, could I? Is it possible that this is why the enlightened masters tell you that the Truth cannot be talked about, but only pointed too? If it were an experience, they could describe the experience, yes? The master IS Truth. The master is not experiencing Truth. There is no experience of Truth. There's no reason at all for you to believe me. Look and see for yourself. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 [...] >>>> Experiencer doesn't need to experience anything in order to exist. >>Phil: Of course it does. Let me see, if I can describe it using the following example: We see things with eyes! but eyes [and, the `ability' to see] remain intact even when there is... nothing to see at the moment! Ears enable us to hear sound. but ears [and, the `ability' to hear] remain intact even when there is... no sound to hear at the moment! > What is the meaning of an experiencer that never > experiences? I did not say `never', Phil. > I think you know better than that. > Existence exists. Or you can say... Existence IS. >You only call it an experiencer because you can't imagine > existing without experiencing. The experiencer is ego. Do you think the > experiencer will ever dissolve if you don't believe it's possible? If " my " believing or not believing can make it dissolve or not... then, it sounds like " my " creation! In that case... Who am I? Who are you? `Who' `believes' and `who' gets dissolved and `who' sees it getting dissolved? Do I [or you] have two selves? One that gets dissolved and other that sees it dissolving? If yes... then, I am Only talking about that... which remains! That one is the Only One Real! That One is the Only One Real Thinker and Experiencer! > > If possible, please share > your OWN experience! > > > > Phil: I already described my situation when this topic began. The > experiencer has not left. Ok. > If it had, I could not describe it as an experience, could I? Will there be a " you " to describe anything in that case? > Is it possible that this is why the enlightened masters tell you that the > Truth cannot be talked about, but only pointed too? Nothing can be really described in words, words only point to it. When I say... `sweet', `sour', `salty', tart.... you understand it Only because... you already know that taste! You have tasted it before! Without your personal experience of these tastes, my words would have hardly meant anything to you! Just like the description of the rainbow mean very little to someone blind! Just like the description of music doesn't really explain it to Deaf! >If it were an experience, > they could describe the experience, yes? They could and they have... such as by... sat-chit-ananda! But, without `personal' experience, we may not really understand it! >The master IS Truth. The master is > not experiencing Truth. There is no experience of Truth. Yes, experiencer doesn't remain apart from the experience. They merge into one. Some call it... Awareness becoming aware of itself... or Consciousness becoming conscious of itself! > > There's no reason at all for you to believe me. Look and see for yourself. Yes. What I describe[d] is how I see it. > > Phil Warm regards, ac. 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.