Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > > < Do you 'see' this in consciousness, Michael? I ask because it's very > much > < like what I 'see'. > < That which consciousness 'creates' with it's focus of Self cannot > help but > < be identified with, eh? It literally IS the Self, and so > identification is > < also spontaneous and inevitable until such 'time' that these > " distinctions " > < dissipate. > > < Phil > > If I follow you correctly, it's more of a *sense* or *feel* to me. Sort > of like observing a pot of water boil. All that movement but the *whole > thing* (if you will) isn't going anywhere. As J. Krishnamurti put it > once, " There is movement in the mind but not of the mind. " > > Michael > Which is the real point of the Kaleidoscope piece. But to try to explain it further is like trying to explain a joke. Something is lost. The kaleidoscope image says it very well, it seems to me. The kaleidoscope is *just there*, no matter what, and all the while the images are flying all around. The real point, it seems to me, is that one can be *simultaneously aware* of the kaleidoscope and the images, of the mass of chocolate and the bubbles, of the display of phenomena and the ineffable through which it all moves. And in the end even that distinction vanishes. There is just the ineffable. The phenomena continue to appear, much as before, but somehow the phenomena are *not there*! It is like when you rub your eyes and see a bunch of stars. You see the stars, but you know that they are *not there*. In the end it is the same with phenomena. You see it all, but it is also Not There. Bill 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.