Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Eventually, however, even the concept of a changeless background must go. It's all bullshit, Werner. I agree with you. In fact, I don't really give a crap about enlightenment or realization or whatever stupid word people use to describe their dinner's journey to the water closet. I think I'm an even worse candidate for 'enlightenment' than you are. " Silver " Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069 wrote: > > You are like a blank piece of paper upon which the word is written, > an untainted canvas upon which the painting is struck, an uncarved > block of marble out of which the statue is chiseled, an unanimated > cinema screen against which the motion picture is projected. You are > blank, untainted, uncarved, unanimated and unmanifested potential. > You are the changeless background against which illusory changes > appear and disappear, unmanifested potential out of which actualized > manifestations arise and subside. > > " Silver " > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 8:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > epston@ > > > Re: Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > adithya_comming@ writes: > > > > > > > > > Nisargardatta writes: > > > > > > Changes are inevitable in the > > > > changeful, but you are not subject to > > > > them. You are the changeless > > > > background, against which changes are > > > > perceived. > > > > > > > > L.E: Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " And > if > > it does > > > not > > > > perceived because it is changeless then who or what is the > > perceiver? > > > > If the background which he says we are does not change as > > ordinary life > > > > proceeds what is going on? Why does changing life proceed > > against a > > > changeless > > > > background? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. > Why > > is it > > > not possible to have a changeless background that perceives > change? > > The > > > background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The > > totality from which the > > > reflection originates need not change in this experiential > > identification. > > > > > > Phil > > > > Let's look at Niz's statement again: " You are the changeless > > background, against which changes are perceived. " > > > > Larry asks us to " Notice that the changeless > background " perceives. " " > > > > Do you see the problem now? > > > > " Silver " > ************** > > You are like a blank piece of paper upon which the word is written, > an untainted canvas upon which the painting is struck, an uncarved > block of marble out of which the statue is chiseled, an unanimated > cinema screen against which the motion picture is projected. You are > blank, untainted, uncarved, unanimated and unmanifested potential. > You are the changeless background against which illusory changes > appear and disappear, unmanifested potential out of which actualized > manifestations arise and subside. > > " Silver " > 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.