Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > > > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > > > > then it is unreal. > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > > > > unreal. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very > > > > different > > > > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is > > sufficiently > > > > brainwashed ;-) > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zen, > > > > > > one time is enough. > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents one > > from direct perception. > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > There is n such thing as a direct perception. > > " 'erception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > toombaru > It depends on the meanings for your terms. If by direct perception you mean perception *of something*, then yes. If by direct perception you mean simply " perceiving " (without an object), then no. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > > > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > > > > > then it is unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > > > > > unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very > > > > > different > > > > > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is > > > sufficiently > > > > > brainwashed ;-) > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zen, > > > > > > > > one time is enough. > > > > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents one > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as a direct perception. > > > > " perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > toombaru > > > > It depends on the meanings for your terms. > If by direct perception you mean perception *of something*, > then yes. If by direct perception you mean simply > " perceiving " (without an object), then no. > > Bill > I'm having a little trouble with the perception without an object thing......Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > > > > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > > > > > > then it is unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > > > > > > unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very > > > > > > different > > > > > > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is > > > > sufficiently > > > > > > brainwashed ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zen, > > > > > > > > > > one time is enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents one > > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as a direct perception. > > > > > > " perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > It depends on the meanings for your terms. > > If by direct perception you mean perception *of something*, > > then yes. If by direct perception you mean simply > > " perceiving " (without an object), then no. > > > > Bill > > > > > > I'm having a little trouble with the perception without an object thing......Could you please > elaborate on that? > > Thanks > > > toombaru > Sure... You are walking along, perhaps in nature. The mind is utterly silent... the crunch of feet on footpath, sounds of birds, the waft of a breeze, all crisp and fresh. Like that. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > > > > > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > > > > > > > then it is unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > > > > > > > unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two > very > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a > knowing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is > > > > > sufficiently > > > > > > > brainwashed ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zen, > > > > > > > > > > > > one time is enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > > > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and > prevents one > > > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as a direct perception. > > > > > > > > " perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > It depends on the meanings for your terms. > > > If by direct perception you mean perception *of something*, > > > then yes. If by direct perception you mean simply > > > " perceiving " (without an object), then no. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > I'm having a little trouble with the perception without an object > thing......Could you please > > elaborate on that? > > > > Thanks > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Sure... > > You are walking along, perhaps in nature. > The mind is utterly silent... > the crunch of feet on footpath, sounds of birds, > the waft of a breeze, all crisp and fresh. > > Like that. > > > Bill > Wondering; Mind....as experienced through the human brain.......attaches a post-it to every conceptual thing. Is it possible .....in your opinion....to experience stimuli after they pass through this web of filters that is the mind as experienced through the human being? The sound of a bird......becomes " What kind of bird is that. " The crunch of feet on a footpath becomes...... " Fall is coming...I had better gather some wood. " Have you personally experienced this...pristine perception......I have not. That which happens here can best be described as a complete lack of the sense of a separate self.....It is most pleasant...( I think LOL)... the thing that I think of as my self is completely gone...and in its place a euphoric emptiness. It comes announced with a feeling of edgeless love.......It leaves in its wake......an inability to function in a normal way. If it happens in my store.......while talking to a customer....I come out of it unable to make sense of all those numbers on the cash register....I can't make change...... It drives my poor wife crazy...LOL It happens more and more. Does that sound familiar to you.........or any one else here? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > > > > > > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > > > > > > > > then it is unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > > > > > > > > unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two > > very > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a > > knowing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is > > > > > > sufficiently > > > > > > > > brainwashed ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one time is enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > > > > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and > > prevents one > > > > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as a direct perception. > > > > > > > > > > " perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on the meanings for your terms. > > > > If by direct perception you mean perception *of something*, > > > > then yes. If by direct perception you mean simply > > > > " perceiving " (without an object), then no. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm having a little trouble with the perception without an object > > thing......Could you please > > > elaborate on that? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > Sure... > > > > You are walking along, perhaps in nature. > > The mind is utterly silent... > > the crunch of feet on footpath, sounds of birds, > > the waft of a breeze, all crisp and fresh. > > > > Like that. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Wondering; > > > Mind....as experienced through the human brain.......attaches a post-it to every conceptual > thing. > > > Is it possible .....in your opinion....to experience stimuli after they pass through this web of > filters that is the mind as experienced through the human being? > > > The sound of a bird......becomes " What kind of bird is that. " > > The crunch of feet on a footpath becomes...... " Fall is coming...I had better gather some > wood. " > > > Have you personally experienced this...pristine perception......I have not. > > That which happens here can best be described as a complete lack of the sense of a > separate self.....It is most pleasant...( I think LOL)... the thing that I think of as my self is > completely gone...and in its place a euphoric emptiness. > > It comes announced with a feeling of edgeless love.......It leaves in its wake......an inability > to function in a normal way. > > If it happens in my store.......while talking to a customer....I come out of it unable to make > sense of all those numbers on the cash register....I can't make change...... > > It drives my poor wife crazy...LOL > > It happens more and more. > > > > Does that sound familiar to you.........or any one else here? > > > > > > toombaru > i'm happy you joined the walk, Toombaru. well, is it not funny that Pete's description of silent mind is full of sounds of nature?!? Now, obviously there is no Pete in that description, that's the point. looking into that, I see no Pete, and that is the object that is missing. No human form, no person, as you well know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 > > > > > > I'm having a little trouble with the perception without an object > > thing......Could you please > > > elaborate on that? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > Sure... > > > > You are walking along, perhaps in nature. > > The mind is utterly silent... > > the crunch of feet on footpath, sounds of birds, > > the waft of a breeze, all crisp and fresh. > > > > Like that. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Wondering; > > > Mind....as experienced through the human brain.......attaches a post-it to every conceptual > thing. How does the conceptual " thing " arise in the first place? > > Is it possible .....in your opinion....to experience stimuli after they pass through this web of > filters that is the mind as experienced through the human being? > I don't understand the question. Sorry. > The sound of a bird......becomes " What kind of bird is that. " Ahh... but I am saying that needn't happen at all. It is a kind of profound passiveness, in a way. It is an allowing only what action arises of its own. After some decades of such allowing, things became quieter and quieter, as if the " self-starting " patterns from old habits finally faded away. Writing this message, for example, is happening only as prompted by reading your message. The words typed here just come out. There is no thought about what this is " about " , there is no sense of where this message will end or what its purpose is. It is just known -- somehow -- that the message will end when it is done, and this activity will end as well. If there is no thought about what this message is about, then certainly no thought about, " What kind of bird is that? " > The crunch of feet on a footpath becomes...... " Fall is coming...I had better gather some > wood. " Perhaps the impulse to gather wood would arise, and then that activity would begin. But it would never be, " *I* should gather some wood. " No words would arise. If you think about it, the words are redundant. If the words saying, " Gather wood, " arise, then the knowing to gather wood is already there before the words arise. So there really is no necessity for such internal verbalizations. Just as the " self-starting actions " fade away as unnecessary, so do internal verbalizations. It is as if, once the vicious cycles that generate rediculous redundant programming are gone the " bullshit " patterning can fade away and there is in its place a wonderously lean economy. Why does internal dialog go away? Because it serves no purpose! > > Have you personally experienced this...pristine perception......I have not. All the time. > That which happens here can best be described as a complete lack of the sense of a > separate self.....It is most pleasant...( I think LOL)... the thing that I think of as my self is > completely gone...and in its place a euphoric emptiness. That too. > It comes announced with a feeling of edgeless love.......It leaves in its wake......an inability > to function in a normal way. Not a coming and going, however. Or any sense of an " edgeless love... " . Not even a sense of an Emptiness (something that used to be the case). There *is* a quality of love, but it is just completely merged with everything else. There is no " sense " of it per se. It is as if all that is *is* love. But it is not something that comes to mind. When all that is, including this typing, this computer screen etc. etc., when *all* of it is love, what's possible need could there be to *say* that to oneself? Answer: there is none! There is no more a point in saying all is love than there is in saying that what I am breathing is air. > If it happens in my store.......while talking to a customer....I come out of it unable to make > sense of all those numbers on the cash register....I can't make change...... It was nearly three years ago that there was a profound " heart experience " (a sense of as if " two oceans merging " in the heart). It was nearly a year before I could do software work after that. I spend the first six months after that in a very blissed out state. Eventually that became integrated (somehow) and now I am able to do complex mental work (such as software work). In fact, now better than ever before. > It drives my poor wife crazy...LOL > > It happens more and more. > > > > Does that sound familiar to you.........or any one else here? > Yes, as you can see from my remarks above. I am certain it must be unique in many ways for different individuals. BTW, after that heart experience I started reading Ramana (for the first time really), and that helped a lot because much of what he said related to what I was going through. I couldn't find a single other person who could relate. On the nondual lists I was sometimes ridiculed for being so " heart oriented " . But Ramana's perspective girded me up and I felt OK about it. Bill > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm having a little trouble with the perception without an > object > > > thing......Could you please > > > > elaborate on that? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Sure... > > > > > > You are walking along, perhaps in nature. > > > The mind is utterly silent... > > > the crunch of feet on footpath, sounds of birds, > > > the waft of a breeze, all crisp and fresh. > > > > > > Like that. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering; > > > > > > Mind....as experienced through the human brain.......attaches a > post-it to every conceptual > > thing. > > How does the conceptual " thing " arise in the first place? > > > > > Is it possible .....in your opinion....to experience stimuli after > they pass through this web of > > filters that is the mind as experienced through the human being? > > > > I don't understand the question. Sorry. > > > The sound of a bird......becomes " What kind of bird is that. " > > Ahh... but I am saying that needn't happen at all. > It is a kind of profound passiveness, in a way. > It is an allowing only what action arises of its > own. After some decades of such allowing, things > became quieter and quieter, as if the " self-starting " > patterns from old habits finally faded away. > > Writing this message, for example, is happening > only as prompted by reading your message. The words > typed here just come out. There is no thought about > what this is " about " , there is no sense of where this > message will end or what its purpose is. It is just > known -- somehow -- that the message will end when > it is done, and this activity will end as well. > > If there is no thought about what this message is > about, then certainly no thought about, " What kind > of bird is that? " > > > > The crunch of feet on a footpath becomes...... " Fall is coming...I > had better gather some > > wood. " > > Perhaps the impulse to gather wood would arise, > and then that activity would begin. But it would > never be, " *I* should gather some wood. " No words > would arise. If you think about it, the words are > redundant. If the words saying, " Gather wood, " arise, > then the knowing to gather wood is already there > before the words arise. So there really is no > necessity for such internal verbalizations. > > Just as the " self-starting actions " fade away > as unnecessary, so do internal verbalizations. > It is as if, once the vicious cycles that generate > rediculous redundant programming are gone the > " bullshit " patterning can fade away and there is > in its place a wonderously lean economy. Why does > internal dialog go away? Because it serves no > purpose! > > > > > Have you personally experienced this...pristine perception......I > have not. > > All the time. > > > That which happens here can best be described as a complete lack of > the sense of a > > separate self.....It is most pleasant...( I think LOL)... the thing > that I think of as my self is > > completely gone...and in its place a euphoric emptiness. > > That too. > > > It comes announced with a feeling of edgeless love.......It leaves > in its wake......an inability > > to function in a normal way. > > Not a coming and going, however. Or any sense of an " edgeless > love... " . > Not even a sense of an Emptiness (something that used to be the case). > > There *is* a quality of love, but it is just completely > merged with everything else. There is no " sense " of it > per se. It is as if all that is *is* love. But it is not > something that comes to mind. When all that is, including > this typing, this computer screen etc. etc., when *all* of > it is love, what's possible need could there be to *say* > that to oneself? Answer: there is none! There is no more > a point in saying all is love than there is in saying that > what I am breathing is air. > > > If it happens in my store.......while talking to a customer....I > come out of it unable to make > > sense of all those numbers on the cash register....I can't make > change...... > > It was nearly three years ago that there was a > profound " heart experience " (a sense of as if > " two oceans merging " in the heart). It was nearly > a year before I could do software work after that. > I spend the first six months after that in a very > blissed out state. Eventually that became integrated > (somehow) and now I am able to do complex mental > work (such as software work). In fact, now better > than ever before. > > > It drives my poor wife crazy...LOL > > > > It happens more and more. > > > > > > > > Does that sound familiar to you.........or any one else here? > > > Yes, as you can see from my remarks above. > I am certain it must be unique in many ways > for different individuals. > > BTW, after that heart experience I started reading Ramana > (for the first time really), and that helped a lot > because much of what he said related to what I was going through. > I couldn't find a single other person who could relate. > On the nondual lists I was sometimes ridiculed for being > so " heart oriented " . But Ramana's perspective girded me up > and I felt OK about it. > > Bill > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Thank you. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm having a little trouble with the perception without an > > object > > > > thing......Could you please > > > > > elaborate on that? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure... > > > > > > > > You are walking along, perhaps in nature. > > > > The mind is utterly silent... > > > > the crunch of feet on footpath, sounds of birds, > > > > the waft of a breeze, all crisp and fresh. > > > > > > > > Like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering; > > > > > > > > > Mind....as experienced through the human brain.......attaches a > > post-it to every conceptual > > > thing. > > > > How does the conceptual " thing " arise in the first place? > > > > > > > > Is it possible .....in your opinion....to experience stimuli after > > they pass through this web of > > > filters that is the mind as experienced through the human being? > > > > > > > I don't understand the question. Sorry. > > > > > The sound of a bird......becomes " What kind of bird is that. " > > > > Ahh... but I am saying that needn't happen at all. > > It is a kind of profound passiveness, in a way. > > It is an allowing only what action arises of its > > own. After some decades of such allowing, things > > became quieter and quieter, as if the " self-starting " > > patterns from old habits finally faded away. > > > > Writing this message, for example, is happening > > only as prompted by reading your message. The words > > typed here just come out. There is no thought about > > what this is " about " , there is no sense of where this > > message will end or what its purpose is. It is just > > known -- somehow -- that the message will end when > > it is done, and this activity will end as well. > > > > If there is no thought about what this message is > > about, then certainly no thought about, " What kind > > of bird is that? " > > > > > > > The crunch of feet on a footpath becomes...... " Fall is coming...I > > had better gather some > > > wood. " > > > > Perhaps the impulse to gather wood would arise, > > and then that activity would begin. But it would > > never be, " *I* should gather some wood. " No words > > would arise. If you think about it, the words are > > redundant. If the words saying, " Gather wood, " arise, > > then the knowing to gather wood is already there > > before the words arise. So there really is no > > necessity for such internal verbalizations. > > > > Just as the " self-starting actions " fade away > > as unnecessary, so do internal verbalizations. > > It is as if, once the vicious cycles that generate > > rediculous redundant programming are gone the > > " bullshit " patterning can fade away and there is > > in its place a wonderously lean economy. Why does > > internal dialog go away? Because it serves no > > purpose! > > > > > > > > Have you personally experienced this...pristine perception......I > > have not. > > > > All the time. > > > > > That which happens here can best be described as a complete lack of > > the sense of a > > > separate self.....It is most pleasant...( I think LOL)... the thing > > that I think of as my self is > > > completely gone...and in its place a euphoric emptiness. > > > > That too. > > > > > It comes announced with a feeling of edgeless love.......It leaves > > in its wake......an inability > > > to function in a normal way. > > > > Not a coming and going, however. Or any sense of an " edgeless > > love... " . > > Not even a sense of an Emptiness (something that used to be the case). > > > > There *is* a quality of love, but it is just completely > > merged with everything else. There is no " sense " of it > > per se. It is as if all that is *is* love. But it is not > > something that comes to mind. When all that is, including > > this typing, this computer screen etc. etc., when *all* of > > it is love, what's possible need could there be to *say* > > that to oneself? Answer: there is none! There is no more > > a point in saying all is love than there is in saying that > > what I am breathing is air. > > > > > If it happens in my store.......while talking to a customer....I > > come out of it unable to make > > > sense of all those numbers on the cash register....I can't make > > change...... > > > > It was nearly three years ago that there was a > > profound " heart experience " (a sense of as if > > " two oceans merging " in the heart). It was nearly > > a year before I could do software work after that. > > I spend the first six months after that in a very > > blissed out state. Eventually that became integrated > > (somehow) and now I am able to do complex mental > > work (such as software work). In fact, now better > > than ever before. > > > > > It drives my poor wife crazy...LOL > > > > > > It happens more and more. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that sound familiar to you.........or any one else here? > > > > > Yes, as you can see from my remarks above. > > I am certain it must be unique in many ways > > for different individuals. > > > > BTW, after that heart experience I started reading Ramana > > (for the first time really), and that helped a lot > > because much of what he said related to what I was going through. > > I couldn't find a single other person who could relate. > > On the nondual lists I was sometimes ridiculed for being > > so " heart oriented " . But Ramana's perspective girded me up > > and I felt OK about it. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > toombaru > Each salt doll......seems to dissolve......in its own time. toombaru 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.