Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Mirage

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

I wonder...

 

When I see a mirage and I realize

That it is a mirage

Do I not still perceive the mirage?

With the difference that now

I know that it will not quench my thirst?

 

When I see the rope and realize it is not a snake

Is the rope not still there, unchanged

With the difference that now

I need not fear?

 

When I see " I am " and realize

It is not the center of experiencing

Do I not still perceive " I am "

With the difference that now

It is itself another experience?

 

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

>

> I wonder...

>

> When I see a mirage and I realize

> That it is a mirage

> Do I not still perceive the mirage?

> With the difference that now

> I know that it will not quench my thirst?

>

> When I see the rope and realize it is not a snake

> Is the rope not still there, unchanged

> With the difference that now

> I need not fear?

>

> When I see " I am " and realize

> It is not the center of experiencing

> Do I not still perceive " I am "

> With the difference that now

> It is itself another experience?

>

> Stefan

>

 

 

 

When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage left....just

light.....bouncing.

 

'You " can never see the 'I am.

 

Anything that you can see....is not you.

 

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote:

> >

> > I wonder...

> >

> > When I see a mirage and I realize

> > That it is a mirage

> > Do I not still perceive the mirage?

> > With the difference that now

> > I know that it will not quench my thirst?

> >

> > When I see the rope and realize it is not a snake

> > Is the rope not still there, unchanged

> > With the difference that now

> > I need not fear?

> >

> > When I see " I am " and realize

> > It is not the center of experiencing

> > Do I not still perceive " I am "

> > With the difference that now

> > It is itself another experience?

> >

> > Stefan

> >

 

> When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage

left....just light.....bouncing.

>

> 'You " can never see the 'I am.

>

> Anything that you can see....is not you.

>

> toombaru

 

 

Thanks for your attempt...

 

I had viewed those examples as metaphors for conceptualizing (and I

think " I am " is itself a concept). When I see the mirage I think " its

water " . When I realize the illusion then I think " a mirage that looks

like water " . The perspective has changed but the procedure is the

same. Your suggestion is again another nuance: when I see the mirage

as bouncing light then because I consider it looks like that.

 

So, when I have realized that " I am " is merely my conceptualization

the perspective has changed but the concept is still there. When you

call for " Stefan " I will say " yes, thats me " .

 

Greetings

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

 

>I wonder...

>

>When I see a mirage and I realize

>That it is a mirage

>Do I not still perceive the mirage?

>With the difference that now

>I know that it will not quench my thirst?

 

>When I see the rope and realize it is not a snake

>Is the rope not still there, unchanged

>With the difference that now

>I need not fear?

 

>When I see " I am " and realize

>It is not the center of experiencing

>Do I not still perceive " I am "

>With the difference that now

>It is itself another experience?

 

 

And when I realize

That there is nothing seen

But conceptualizations

And when I consider

That what I cannot see

Cannot be seen

Because it does not exist

 

And when I finally give up

To search for the Unknown

 

Then there is no reference point anymore

For " concept " and I might as well call it

" What is "

And relax into

This.

 

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I wonder...

> > >

> > > When I see a mirage and I realize

> > > That it is a mirage

> > > Do I not still perceive the mirage?

> > > With the difference that now

> > > I know that it will not quench my thirst?

> > >

> > > When I see the rope and realize it is not a snake

> > > Is the rope not still there, unchanged

> > > With the difference that now

> > > I need not fear?

> > >

> > > When I see " I am " and realize

> > > It is not the center of experiencing

> > > Do I not still perceive " I am "

> > > With the difference that now

> > > It is itself another experience?

> > >

> > > Stefan

> > >

>

> > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage

> left....just light.....bouncing.

> >

> > 'You " can never see the 'I am.

> >

> > Anything that you can see....is not you.

> >

> > toombaru

>

>

> Thanks for your attempt...

>

> I had viewed those examples as metaphors for conceptualizing (and I

> think " I am " is itself a concept).

 

 

The totality of the I am is composed of the belief in the I am.

 

The I am that believes that it is merely the I am is nothing other then the I am

its self.

 

 

 

 

When I see the mirage I think " its

> water " . When I realize the illusion then I think " a mirage that looks

> like water " . The perspective has changed but the procedure is the

> same. Your suggestion is again another nuance: when I see the mirage

> as bouncing light then because I consider it looks like that.

 

 

 

Indeed.....it is not what the I am thinks it knows conceptually that breaks

through and

dissipates the hypnotic trance of identification....Nothing added to the phantom

offers the

suspension in the belief of its existence or non-existence.

 

It is the understanding this most peculiar process that offers the ultimate

medicine....that

if taken......totally annihilates illusory sense of self.

 

By saying that it is not......it.only seems to verify that it is.

 

 

It can never see its self........because there isn't one.

 

It is the one searching,

 

 

The searcher can never find that which it has conceptualized as its goal.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> So, when I have realized that " I am " is merely my conceptualization

> the perspective has changed but the concept is still there. When you

> call for " Stefan " I will say " yes, thats me " .

>

> Greetings

> Stefan

>

 

 

 

The realization by the I am that it is the I am......is its death sentence.

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And everything you cannot see is also not you.

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote:

> >

> > I wonder...

> >

> > When I see a mirage and I realize

> > That it is a mirage

> > Do I not still perceive the mirage?

> > With the difference that now

> > I know that it will not quench my thirst?

> >

> > When I see the rope and realize it is not a snake

> > Is the rope not still there, unchanged

> > With the difference that now

> > I need not fear?

> >

> > When I see " I am " and realize

> > It is not the center of experiencing

> > Do I not still perceive " I am "

> > With the difference that now

> > It is itself another experience?

> >

> > Stefan

> >

>

>

>

> When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage

left....just light.....bouncing.

>

> 'You " can never see the 'I am.

>

> Anything that you can see....is not you.

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/23/2006 9:12:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

" Stefan " <s.petersilge

Mirage

 

I wonder...

 

When I see a mirage and I realize

That it is a mirage

Do I not still perceive the mirage?

With the difference that now

I know that it will not quench my thirst?

 

When I see the rope and realize it is not a snake

Is the rope not still there, unchanged

With the difference that now

I need not fear?

 

When I see " I am " and realize

It is not the center of experiencing

Do I not still perceive " I am "

With the difference that now

It is itself another experience?

 

Stefan

 

 

 

Sure. There's a tendency to imagine that the ego realizes the Truth and that

the illusion somehow must end because perception must follow this

realization, but no ego ever awakened from the illusion. The experiential

vehicle

continues to be what it always was, which is simply a perceptive mechanism that

thinks, feels and reacts.

 

There is no 'movement' that occurs in the vehicle, it's the Self that moves

it's focus from individuality to oneness (consciousness). This is a useful

understanding because it applies to the function of acceptance within the

illusion. There's a tendency to imagine that, if all is accepted, it will

somehow

change in such a way that it becomes acceptable. Nothing changes in the

events of the world including the programmed remnants of ego, they simply cease

to

matter. The one who struggles does not cause anything to become acceptable,

rather he simply moves himself away from the struggle and allows it to be

what it is. Struggle will still occur because struggle is from ego and ego

isn't

going anywhere. It ceases to matter whether it occurs or not. One 'watches'

the struggle occurring and allows it to be what it is. This is the true

meaning of detachment and acceptance.

 

Ego will remain at peace only as long as everyone behaves, and then it will

react. Ego will never become immune. This reaction cannot be resisted, since

this would be conscious struggle added to the programming of ego which is

found to be unacceptable. It does not need to matter that this occurs.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" toombaru2006 " <lastrain

Re: Mirage

 

 

 

In a message dated 2/23/2006 9:12:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage left....just

light.....bouncing

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

A mirage doesn't cease to be a mirage just because you know what it is. It's

still going to appear to be a body of water. In fact, it's when you don't

know that it's a mirage that there will not seem to be a mirage.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

 

>The realization by the I am that it is the I am......is its death

>sentence.

 

Hi Toombaru.

 

The " I am " cannot realize nor mistake anything. There is no mysterious

entity that realizes. Realization, experiencing goes by itself.

 

The sense " I am " is a conceptualization, nothing else. Easily

recognized. It is not different from " my working-desk " . Without this

concept I would not know whom you mean, when you are calling for " Stefan " .

 

Conceptualizations are happening so that they can be seen. Only

non-concepts possibly could be invisible, like the " I " in " I am " . But

they are a myth.

 

When it is realized that " I am " is conceptualization, then it is also

realized that everything is conceptualization. When this is understood

it is also understood that there is no reference point for " concept " .

Then it can as well be said: everything is as is. The relaxation into

what is can happen.

 

Greetings

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

 

>Sure. There's a tendency to imagine that the ego realizes the Truth

>and that the illusion somehow must end because perception must follow

>this realization, but no ego ever awakened from the illusion. The

>experiential vehicle continues to be what it always was, which is

>simply a perceptive mechanism that thinks, feels and reacts.

 

Yes, and the " ego " is nothing else but a concept spooking inside of

consciousness along with everything else.

 

>There is no 'movement' that occurs in the vehicle, it's the Self that

>moves it's focus from individuality to oneness (consciousness). This

>is a useful understanding because it applies to the function of

>acceptance within the illusion.

 

It might be useful for some... I think the mention of a " self " can

also deepen the split between what is and what is desired. I would

rather say: the focus is shifting by itself. Hmmm... maybe it can be

said better.

 

>There's a tendency to imagine that, if all is accepted, it will

>somehow change in such a way that it becomes acceptable. Nothing

>changes in the events of the world including the programmed remnants

>of ego, they simply cease to matter.

 

Very true.

 

>The one who struggles does not cause anything to become acceptable,

>rather he simply moves himself away from the struggle and allows it

>to be what it is. Struggle will still occur because struggle is from

>ego and ego isn't going anywhere. It ceases to matter whether it

>occurs or not. One 'watches' the struggle occurring and allows it to

>be what it is. This is the true meaning of detachment and acceptance.

 

>Ego will remain at peace only as long as everyone behaves, and then

>it will react. Ego will never become immune. This reaction cannot be

>resisted, since this would be conscious struggle added to the

>programming of ego which is found to be unacceptable. It does not

>need to matter that this occurs.

 

Same notion here.

Greetings :-)

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

 

 

> > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage

> left....just light.....bouncing.

> >

> > 'You " can never see the 'I am.

> >

> > Anything that you can see....is not you.

 

 

This is just another thought.

 

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil:

>

>

> A mirage doesn't cease to be a mirage just because you know what it is. > Phil

>

>

 

 

Is a rope able to change itself into a snake......and then back into a rope?

 

The 'problem' lies in the conceptual perception,

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

>Phil:

>A mirage doesn't cease to be a mirage just because you know what it is.

 

Toomb:

>Is a rope able to change itself into a snake......and then back into

>a rope?

>

>The 'problem' lies in the conceptual perception,

 

Toomb, the rope remains the rope just like the conception remains the

conception, no matter if it is recognised as such or not.

 

A mirage remains a mirage, no matter if it is perceived as water,

mirage or light... it remains a conception.

 

There is no such thing as " no-conception " .

 

Greetings

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

wrote:

> >

> >Phil:

> >A mirage doesn't cease to be a mirage just because you know what

it is.

>

> Toomb:

> >Is a rope able to change itself into a snake......and then back

into

> >a rope?

> >

> >The 'problem' lies in the conceptual perception,

>

> Toomb, the rope remains the rope just like the conception remains

the

> conception, no matter if it is recognised as such or not.

>

> A mirage remains a mirage, no matter if it is perceived as water,

> mirage or light... it remains a conception.

>

> There is no such thing as " no-conception " .

>

> Greetings

> Stefan

 

 

Yes there is.

 

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

 

 

>>There is no such thing as " no-conception " .

>>

>>Greetings

>>Stefan

>

>

>Yes there is.

>

>Len

 

Len, would you say that conception does exist?

 

Greetings

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

>

>

> >>There is no such thing as " no-conception " .

> >>

> >>Greetings

> >>Stefan

> >

> >

> >Yes there is.

> >

> >Len

>

> Len, would you say that conception does exist?

>

> Greetings

> Stefan

 

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> >

> >

> > >>There is no such thing as " no-conception " .

> > >>

> > >>Greetings

> > >>Stefan

> > >

> > >

> > >Yes there is.

> > >

> > >Len

> >

> > Len, would you say that conception does exist?

> >

> > Greetings

> > Stefan

>

>

> Yes.

>

 

 

What about the people in your dream last night?....Do they exist?

 

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> >

> >>>There is no such thing as " no-conception " .

> >>>

> >>>Greetings

> >>>Stefan

> >>

> >>

> >>Yes there is.

> >>

> >>Len

> >

> >Len, would you say that conception does exist?

> >

> >Greetings

> >Stefan

>

>

> Yes.

 

Hmmm... you know, if you would have said " no " my answer would have

been that we are talking about the same thing.

 

Language cannot be used non-conceptually, would you agree?

 

Then, what you are referring to must be something unexpressable, even

unthinkable.

 

Greetings

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

> > wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > >>>There is no such thing as " no-conception " .

> > >>>

> > >>>Greetings

> > >>>Stefan

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>Yes there is.

> > >>

> > >>Len

> > >

> > >Len, would you say that conception does exist?

> > >

> > >Greetings

> > >Stefan

> >

> >

> > Yes.

>

> Hmmm... you know, if you would have said " no " my answer would have

> been that we are talking about the same thing.

>

> Language cannot be used non-conceptually, would you agree?

>

> Then, what you are referring to must be something unexpressable, even

> unthinkable.

>

> Greetings

> Stefan

>

 

 

 

Nothing is unthinkable.

 

(another good bumper sticker)

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

" Stefan " <s.petersilge

Re: Mirage

 

--- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

 

>Sure. There's a tendency to imagine that the ego realizes the Truth

>and that the illusion somehow must end because perception must follow

>this realization, but no ego ever awakened from the illusion. The

>experiential vehicle continues to be what it always was, which is

>simply a perceptive mechanism that thinks, feels and reacts.

 

Yes, and the " ego " is nothing else but a concept spooking inside of

consciousness along with everything else.

 

>There is no 'movement' that occurs in the vehicle, it's the Self that

>moves it's focus from individuality to oneness (consciousness). This

>is a useful understanding because it applies to the function of

>acceptance within the illusion.

 

It might be useful for some... I think the mention of a " self " can

also deepen the split between what is and what is desired. I would

rather say: the focus is shifting by itself. Hmmm... maybe it can be

said better.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I use (S)elf to denote consciousness. Not human consciousness but the

experiential aspect of Awareness. To me, it doesn't matter if we call it The

Great Pterodactyl, but yes, it's important to recognize the ego self doesn't

wake up to an individual Self. The illusion of individuality dies. I figure

everybody knows that.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Mirage

 

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

 

 

> > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage

> left....just light.....bouncing.

> >

> > 'You " can never see the 'I am.

> >

> > Anything that you can see....is not you.

 

 

This is just another thought.

 

Len

 

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts, Len. ;)

 

Phil (Just a thought)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

> > wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

<lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > >>>There is no such thing as " no-conception " .

> > >>>

> > >>>Greetings

> > >>>Stefan

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>Yes there is.

> > >>

> > >>Len

> > >

> > >Len, would you say that conception does exist?

> > >

> > >Greetings

> > >Stefan

> >

> >

> > Yes.

>

> Hmmm... you know, if you would have said " no " my answer would have

> been that we are talking about the same thing.

>

> Language cannot be used non-conceptually, would you agree?

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

> Then, what you are referring to must be something unexpressable,

even

> unthinkable.

 

 

 

I´m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache.

Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing.

 

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> <lissbon2002@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >>>There is no such thing as " no-conception " .

> > > >>>

> > > >>>Greetings

> > > >>>Stefan

> > > >>

> > > >>

> > > >>Yes there is.

> > > >>

> > > >>Len

> > > >

> > > >Len, would you say that conception does exist?

> > > >

> > > >Greetings

> > > >Stefan

> > >

> > >

> > > Yes.

> >

> > Hmmm... you know, if you would have said " no " my answer would have

> > been that we are talking about the same thing.

> >

> > Language cannot be used non-conceptually, would you agree?

>

>

> Yes.

>

>

>

>

> > Then, what you are referring to must be something unexpressable,

> even

> > unthinkable.

>

>

>

> I´m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache.

> Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing.

>

> Len

>

 

 

 

Like.............a thing that would exist............even if there were not a

word for it?

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...