Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > I believe that the human brain is an important factor in how we see or > don't see ourselves. > > I believe that the state of " no self " is not a normal state in all > people because it may not be a good survival tool for a meat body to > have in an eat or be eaten world. > > It seems to me that the no self state that Suzanne Segal wrote about > could have developed or been deleted from the gene pool during > evolution, and that it was deleted because emotions like fear for > survival of self as a single individual was useful. the oneness > people got eaten and the " me " people survived to reproduce and prosper. > > I also feel that we can alter the connections in our brain by diligent > work in the form of meditation and self inquiry, and thus establish a > no self state. > > So I think that structure can monitor function and also, at the same > time, function can monitor structure. > > Stu Hi Stu -- Any state that is produced by a brain is dependent upon that brain, and is altered when the brain chemistry alters, or if there is a tumor (as Suzanne had) or whatever. This why *knowing what is as is* isn't a state to enter or leave, and isn't dependent on a brain (nor on particular thoughts, feelings, actions, point-of-view). It's like the question: " Who are you before your parents were born? " " Who are you before your brain constituted? " Altering your brain to produce a state will only give you a state that began, will end, and does not result in *knowing what is, as is.* To speak in terms of states, one would have to say that *knowing what is as is* is the state prior to all states, and inclusive of all arising and departing states. Thus, the term " state " doesn't fit very well. It already is as is - no need to manufacture it, no need for a certain brain state, certain feeling, certain way of thinking -- it's not associated with any particular individual in any way -- Understood first-hand and unmediated, it simply is what is, and all that is -- without any attributes, neither warm nor cold, inside nor outside -- yet inclusive of all relativity in any manifestation. That one dies psychologically in the understanding of this, is simply that there is no way to attach to a state, including a state of existing (or not-existing) as a particular individual. That one nonetheless lives out one's life as an individual is simply because all relativity is already included. Nothing said on an elist (nor any practice or non-practice) will reveal what this is to you. Yet, you are this - the obstacle to first-hand being-aware as this is only one's own " attaching " or " holding " ... No one else can look into this for you -- you alone can look. And all the advice and comments received on lists like this, or from books, or teachers, will not be able to take the look for you. It's not an intellectual thing -- not the idea that " there is no self, and no one to look, and no object to be found. " Ideas come and go, are constituted in the brain -- but this unconstituted which you are, which includes all possible possibilities and all constructions and deconstructions -- is right here now, as is. My 2 centavos, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > I believe that the human brain is an important factor in how we see or > > don't see ourselves. > > > > I believe that the state of " no self " is not a normal state in all > > people because it may not be a good survival tool for a meat body to > > have in an eat or be eaten world. > > > > It seems to me that the no self state that Suzanne Segal wrote about > > could have developed or been deleted from the gene pool during > > evolution, and that it was deleted because emotions like fear for > > survival of self as a single individual was useful. the oneness > > people got eaten and the " me " people survived to reproduce and prosper. > > > > I also feel that we can alter the connections in our brain by diligent > > work in the form of meditation and self inquiry, and thus establish a > > no self state. > > > > So I think that structure can monitor function and also, at the same > > time, function can monitor structure. > > > > Stu > > Hi Stu -- > > Any state that is produced by a brain is dependent upon that brain, > and is altered when the brain chemistry alters, or if there is a tumor > (as Suzanne had) or whatever. > > This why *knowing what is as is* isn't a state to enter or leave, and > isn't dependent on a brain (nor on particular thoughts, feelings, > actions, point-of-view). > > It's like the question: " Who are you before your parents were born? " > > " Who are you before your brain constituted? " > > Altering your brain to produce a state will only give you a state that > began, will end, and does not result in *knowing what is, as is.* > > To speak in terms of states, one would have to say that *knowing what > is as is* is the state prior to all states, and inclusive of all > arising and departing states. Thus, the term " state " doesn't fit very > well. > > It already is as is - no need to manufacture it, no need for a certain > brain state, certain feeling, certain way of thinking -- it's not > associated with any particular individual in any way -- > > Understood first-hand and unmediated, it simply is what is, and all > that is -- without any attributes, neither warm nor cold, inside nor > outside -- yet inclusive of all relativity in any manifestation. > > That one dies psychologically in the understanding of this, is simply > that there is no way to attach to a state, including a state of > existing (or not-existing) as a particular individual. That one > nonetheless lives out one's life as an individual is simply because > all relativity is already included. > > Nothing said on an elist (nor any practice or non-practice) will > reveal what this is to you. > > Yet, you are this - the obstacle to first-hand being-aware as this is > only one's own " attaching " or " holding " ... > > No one else can look into this for you -- you alone can look. > > And all the advice and comments received on lists like this, or from > books, or teachers, will not be able to take the look for you. > > It's not an intellectual thing -- not the idea that " there is no self, > and no one to look, and no object to be found. " > > Ideas come and go, are constituted in the brain -- but this > unconstituted which you are, which includes all possible possibilities > and all constructions and deconstructions -- is right here now, as is. > > My 2 centavos, > Dan > ........it is a presence-awareness that can only be experienced as a flowing-fallingness. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- toombaru2006 <lastrain a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " > <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > > > I believe that the human brain is an important > factor in how we see or > > > don't see ourselves. > > > > > > I believe that the state of " no self " is not a > normal state in all > > > people because it may not be a good survival tool > for a meat body to > > > have in an eat or be eaten world. > > > > > > It seems to me that the no self state that Suzanne > Segal wrote about > > > could have developed or been deleted from the gene > pool during > > > evolution, and that it was deleted because > emotions like fear for > > > survival of self as a single individual was > useful. the oneness > > > people got eaten and the " me " people survived to > reproduce and > prosper. > > > > > > I also feel that we can alter the connections in > our brain by diligent > > > work in the form of meditation and self inquiry, > and thus establish a > > > no self state. > > > > > > So I think that structure can monitor function and > also, at the same > > > time, function can monitor structure. > > > > > > Stu > > > > Hi Stu -- > > > > Any state that is produced by a brain is dependent > upon that brain, > > and is altered when the brain chemistry alters, or > if there is a tumor > > (as Suzanne had) or whatever. > > > > This why *knowing what is as is* isn't a state to > enter or leave, and > > isn't dependent on a brain (nor on particular > thoughts, feelings, > > actions, point-of-view). > > > > It's like the question: " Who are you before your > parents were born? " > > > > " Who are you before your brain constituted? " > > > > Altering your brain to produce a state will only > give you a state that > > began, will end, and does not result in *knowing > what is, as is.* > > > > To speak in terms of states, one would have to say > that *knowing what > > is as is* is the state prior to all states, and > inclusive of all > > arising and departing states. Thus, the term > " state " doesn't fit very > > well. > > > > It already is as is - no need to manufacture it, no > need for a certain > > brain state, certain feeling, certain way of > thinking -- it's not > > associated with any particular individual in any way > -- > > > > Understood first-hand and unmediated, it simply is > what is, and all > > that is -- without any attributes, neither warm nor > cold, inside nor > > outside -- yet inclusive of all relativity in any > manifestation. > > > > That one dies psychologically in the understanding > of this, is simply > > that there is no way to attach to a state, including > a state of > > existing (or not-existing) as a particular > individual. That one > > nonetheless lives out one's life as an individual is > simply because > > all relativity is already included. > > > > Nothing said on an elist (nor any practice or > non-practice) will > > reveal what this is to you. > > > > Yet, you are this - the obstacle to first-hand > being-aware as this is > > only one's own " attaching " or " holding " ... > > > > No one else can look into this for you -- you alone > can look. > > > > And all the advice and comments received on lists > like this, or from > > books, or teachers, will not be able to take the > look for you. > > > > It's not an intellectual thing -- not the idea that > " there is no self, > > and no one to look, and no object to be found. " > > > > Ideas come and go, are constituted in the brain -- > but this > > unconstituted which you are, which includes all > possible possibilities > > and all constructions and deconstructions -- is > right here now, as is. > > > > My 2 centavos, > > Dan > > > .......it is a presence-awareness that can only be > experienced as a > flowing-fallingness. > > > > toombaru > > so you fall...down? > or can you fall ..up? > Is it a directionnal fall? > > Patricia hanging to a mad kit. > > > .........it's like...........there is nothing to hang on to.......things move past.....but they are falling too.......you catch someone's eye......and you both know....and you both smile......you are moving with the mystery.........and like two puppies........ you play in the tall green grass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 I agree with most of what you say here Dan... The remainder I didn't understand :=) But I still hold to what I originally said:-) Our bodies are evolved to survive, not to easily allow awareness of enlightenment. So to me a brain is an obstical to waking up. The irony to me is that the obsticle is part of our waking up!:-)) If you have time, stick this into a Google search: " parietal lobe epilepsy enlightenment " Stu " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > I believe that the human brain is an important factor in how we see or > > don't see ourselves. > > > > I believe that the state of " no self " is not a normal state in all > > people because it may not be a good survival tool for a meat body to > > have in an eat or be eaten world. > > > > It seems to me that the no self state that Suzanne Segal wrote about > > could have developed or been deleted from the gene pool during > > evolution, and that it was deleted because emotions like fear for > > survival of self as a single individual was useful. the oneness > > people got eaten and the " me " people survived to reproduce and prosper. > > > > I also feel that we can alter the connections in our brain by diligent > > work in the form of meditation and self inquiry, and thus establish a > > no self state. > > > > So I think that structure can monitor function and also, at the same > > time, function can monitor structure. > > > > Stu > > Hi Stu -- > > Any state that is produced by a brain is dependent upon that brain, > and is altered when the brain chemistry alters, or if there is a tumor > (as Suzanne had) or whatever. > > This why *knowing what is as is* isn't a state to enter or leave, and > isn't dependent on a brain (nor on particular thoughts, feelings, > actions, point-of-view). > > It's like the question: " Who are you before your parents were born? " > > " Who are you before your brain constituted? " > > Altering your brain to produce a state will only give you a state that > began, will end, and does not result in *knowing what is, as is.* > > To speak in terms of states, one would have to say that *knowing what > is as is* is the state prior to all states, and inclusive of all > arising and departing states. Thus, the term " state " doesn't fit very > well. > > It already is as is - no need to manufacture it, no need for a certain > brain state, certain feeling, certain way of thinking -- it's not > associated with any particular individual in any way -- > > Understood first-hand and unmediated, it simply is what is, and all > that is -- without any attributes, neither warm nor cold, inside nor > outside -- yet inclusive of all relativity in any manifestation. > > That one dies psychologically in the understanding of this, is simply > that there is no way to attach to a state, including a state of > existing (or not-existing) as a particular individual. That one > nonetheless lives out one's life as an individual is simply because > all relativity is already included. > > Nothing said on an elist (nor any practice or non-practice) will > reveal what this is to you. > > Yet, you are this - the obstacle to first-hand being-aware as this is > only one's own " attaching " or " holding " ... > > No one else can look into this for you -- you alone can look. > > And all the advice and comments received on lists like this, or from > books, or teachers, will not be able to take the look for you. > > It's not an intellectual thing -- not the idea that " there is no self, > and no one to look, and no object to be found. " > > Ideas come and go, are constituted in the brain -- but this > unconstituted which you are, which includes all possible possibilities > and all constructions and deconstructions -- is right here now, as is. > > My 2 centavos, > Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > I agree with most of what you say here Dan... The remainder I didn't > understand :=) > > But I still hold to what I originally said:-) > Our bodies are evolved to survive, not to easily allow awareness of > enlightenment. So to me a brain is an obstical to waking up. > > The irony to me is that the obsticle is part of our waking up!:-)) > > If you have time, stick this into a Google search: " parietal lobe > epilepsy enlightenment " > > Stu Stu -- I looked up the Google search. Yes, I know there's a lot of research going on about states of the brain and religious experience. It's interesting stuff -- I think brain research in general is pretty interesting. Yet, none of that will be able to show who you are. You are not a state that you experience, nor a concept you form, nor the sense of being a self or Self or anything else. To know who you are isn't to be aware of an object, nor is it awareness itself (because that just turns " awareness " into an object), nor is it pure subjectivity (you only have subject when you have object, and vice versa). Ideas like " enlightenment " and " waking up " are easily misused in ways that create confusion -- like that ideas that there are people who have the quality of enlightenment and others who don't, or those who are awake and those who aren't. Just more dichotomies to cut through. The brain isn't an obstacle. There aren't any actual obstacles to who you are. Knowing who you are, being, and what is so right now, are all the same thing (which isn't a thing). Thus, the only obstacles are our own beliefs in obstacles, which include our beliefs in dichotomizing " what is " and biasing toward one side which we identify with (e.g. " an enlightened state " ) against the other side (e.g. " an unawake state " , which we want to have distance from. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 I appreciate all the comments that have been made on this thread:-) Dan, reading what you said below resulted in my seeing my egoic self, Stu, as a negative pole of a polarity. Very interesting:-) Stu <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > I agree with most of what you say here Dan... The remainder I didn't > > understand :=) > > > > But I still hold to what I originally said:-) > > Our bodies are evolved to survive, not to easily allow awareness of > > enlightenment. So to me a brain is an obstical to waking up. > > > > The irony to me is that the obsticle is part of our waking up!:-)) > > > > If you have time, stick this into a Google search: " parietal lobe > > epilepsy enlightenment " > > > > Stu > > Stu -- > > I looked up the Google search. Yes, I know there's a lot of research > going on about states of the brain and religious experience. > > It's interesting stuff -- I think brain research in general is pretty > interesting. Yet, none of that will be able to show who you are. > > You are not a state that you experience, nor a concept you form, nor > the sense of being a self or Self or anything else. > > To know who you are isn't to be aware of an object, nor is it > awareness itself (because that just turns " awareness " into an object), > nor is it pure subjectivity (you only have subject when you have > object, and vice versa). > > Ideas like " enlightenment " and " waking up " are easily misused in ways > that create confusion -- like that ideas that there are people who > have the quality of enlightenment and others who don't, or those who > are awake and those who aren't. > > Just more dichotomies to cut through. > > The brain isn't an obstacle. There aren't any actual obstacles to who > you are. Knowing who you are, being, and what is so right now, are > all the same thing (which isn't a thing). > > Thus, the only obstacles are our own beliefs in obstacles, which > include our beliefs in dichotomizing " what is " and biasing toward one > side which we identify with (e.g. " an enlightened state " ) against the > other side (e.g. " an unawake state " , which we want to have distance from. > > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > I appreciate all the comments that have been made on this thread:-) > > Dan, reading what you said below resulted in my seeing my egoic self, > Stu, as a negative pole of a polarity. > Very interesting:-) > > Stu What's the positive pole, Stu? " Ego " is one of those words that mean different things to different people, and can mean different things in different conversations or contexts. It can mean self, self-center, self-centered preoccupations, the feeling of existing ... I tend to look at " ego " as the result of regulation of emotional impulses, with the resultant tensioning of the body-mind system often being experienced as if a " me " were there. As in: " I " don't want this feeling, or " I " better not act out this impulse. So, from that perspective, the " ego " is the inevitable result of conditioning related to social expression and inhibition of impulses. Not something bad, or to be gotten rid of, just to be understood, and not taken as " all of who I am " - just one aspect of the totality-movement of life energy. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 > P: There is no such thing as eternal anything. > Only this moment, moment by moment. > It's so easy to deal with anything for just > a moment. It's when we try to hold on, and > project a future that things become complicated, > and difficult to bear, and suffering begins. > > _____________________ > _ > I like that direction in talking, Pete. And also the important and > often useful story of the " in the moment " thing is also a developed > story when talking. just like the " eternal anything " you reference. > That said, the active projection of future-speak and holding-on > behavior in mental activity sure does sem to create a heck of alot more > misery than the barely embellished arisings on the ground, {hold the > anchovies! ;-) }. I think we can't talk about " un " embellished > arisings, we being humans with a view and a way of talking. Perhaps > experience itself is the least embellished.Again, it depends on your > story line/view. Yes, and all that's a story too. I like stories, I > honor stories, as long as they don't get out of hand and start making a > mess of other beings and the planets existence. I guess I am from the > story-light school of interdependence, cooperation and sit-down dinner > dually-not-dual school of philospophy that has neither a Dean, a Board > of Trustees nor a Founder Emeritus. > > DanielS > > Hello Dan who isn't the other Dan, The other other Dan, by the way, is talking a storm about what 'we' really are: " Stu -- I looked up the Google search. Yes, I know there's a lot of research going on about states of the brain and religious experience. It's interesting stuff -- I think brain research in general is pretty interesting. Yet, none of that will be able to show who you are. You are not a state that you experience, nor a concept you form, nor the sense of being a self or Self or anything else. To know who you are isn't to be aware of an object, nor is it awareness itself (because that just turns " awareness " into an object), nor is it pure subjectivity (you only have subject when you have object, and vice versa). Ideas like " enlightenment " and " waking up " are easily misused in ways that create confusion -- like that ideas that there are people who have the quality of enlightenment and others who don't, or those who are awake and those who aren't. Just more dichotomies to cut through. The brain isn't an obstacle. There aren't any actual obstacles to who you are. Knowing who you are, being, and what is so right now, are all the same thing (which isn't a thing). Thus, the only obstacles are our own beliefs in obstacles, which include our beliefs in dichotomizing " what is " and biasing toward one side which we identify with (e.g. " an enlightened state " ) against the other side (e.g. " an unawake state " , which we want to have distance from. " -- Dan P; Well, what do you think of that? I guess what it boils down to is: simplify, simplify. Nothing wrong with stories, they are fun. It's when you start believing them than suffering shows up. Nothing wrong with awareness, or consciousness either. No much point in being something that can't be felt, and them, still that we are. So simplify, simplify, pitch your tent in awareness, but feel free to roam the country site. pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > P: There is no such thing as eternal anything. > > Only this moment, moment by moment. > > It's so easy to deal with anything for just > > a moment. It's when we try to hold on, and > > project a future that things become complicated, > > and difficult to bear, and suffering begins. > > > > ____________________ _ > > _ > > I like that direction in talking, Pete. And also the important and > > often useful story of the " in the moment " thing is also a developed > > story when talking. just like the " eternal anything " you reference. > > That said, the active projection of future-speak and holding-on > > behavior in mental activity sure does sem to create a heck of alot more > > misery than the barely embellished arisings on the ground, {hold the > > anchovies! ;-) }. I think we can't talk about " un " embellished > > arisings, we being humans with a view and a way of talking. Perhaps > > experience itself is the least embellished.Again, it depends on your > > story line/view. Yes, and all that's a story too. I like stories, I > > honor stories, as long as they don't get out of hand and start making a > > mess of other beings and the planets existence. I guess I am from the > > story-light school of interdependence, cooperation and sit-down dinner > > dually-not-dual school of philospophy that has neither a Dean, a Board > > of Trustees nor a Founder Emeritus. > > > > DanielS > > > > > > Hello Dan who isn't the other Dan, > The other other Dan, by the way, > is talking a storm about what 'we' really > are: > > " Stu -- > > I looked up the Google search. Yes, I know there's a lot of research > going on about states of the brain and religious experience. > > It's interesting stuff -- I think brain research in general is pretty > interesting. Yet, none of that will be able to show who you are. > > You are not a state that you experience, nor a concept you form, nor > the sense of being a self or Self or anything else. > > To know who you are isn't to be aware of an object, nor is it > awareness itself (because that just turns " awareness " into an object), > nor is it pure subjectivity (you only have subject when you have > object, and vice versa). > > Ideas like " enlightenment " and " waking up " are easily misused in ways > that create confusion -- like that ideas that there are people who > have the quality of enlightenment and others who don't, or those who > are awake and those who aren't. > > Just more dichotomies to cut through. > > The brain isn't an obstacle. There aren't any actual obstacles to who > you are. Knowing who you are, being, and what is so right now, are > all the same thing (which isn't a thing). > > Thus, the only obstacles are our own beliefs in obstacles, which > include our beliefs in dichotomizing " what is " and biasing toward one > side which we identify with (e.g. " an enlightened state " ) against the > other side (e.g. " an unawake state " , which we want to have distance > from. " > > -- Dan > > P; Well, what do you think of that? > I guess what it boils down to is: simplify, simplify. > Nothing wrong with stories, they are fun. It's when > you start believing them than suffering shows up. > Nothing wrong with awareness, or consciousness > either. No much point in being something that can't > be felt, and them, still that we are. So simplify, simplify, > pitch your tent in awareness, but feel free to roam the > country site. > > pete > Without any beLIEf to hold one back, in total awareness, the story of I AM is being written, no need for cue-cards. What part of 'Your' life would you have given away now? eh? Love, Ana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5@> wrote: > > > > > P: There is no such thing as eternal anything. > > > Only this moment, moment by moment. > > > It's so easy to deal with anything for just > > > a moment. It's when we try to hold on, and > > > project a future that things become complicated, > > > and difficult to bear, and suffering begins. > > > > > > > ____________________ > _ > > > _ > > > I like that direction in talking, Pete. And also the important and > > > often useful story of the " in the moment " thing is also a > developed > > > story when talking. just like the " eternal anything " you > reference. > > > That said, the active projection of future-speak and holding-on > > > behavior in mental activity sure does sem to create a heck of > alot more > > > misery than the barely embellished arisings on the ground, {hold > the > > > anchovies! ;-) }. I think we can't talk about " un " embellished > > > arisings, we being humans with a view and a way of talking. > Perhaps > > > experience itself is the least embellished.Again, it depends on > your > > > story line/view. Yes, and all that's a story too. I like > stories, I > > > honor stories, as long as they don't get out of hand and start > making a > > > mess of other beings and the planets existence. I guess I am from > the > > > story-light school of interdependence, cooperation and sit-down > dinner > > > dually-not-dual school of philospophy that has neither a Dean, a > Board > > > of Trustees nor a Founder Emeritus. > > > > > > DanielS > > > > > > > > > > Hello Dan who isn't the other Dan, > > The other other Dan, by the way, > > is talking a storm about what 'we' really > > are: > > > > " Stu -- > > > > I looked up the Google search. Yes, I know there's a lot of > research > > going on about states of the brain and religious experience. > > > > It's interesting stuff -- I think brain research in general is > pretty > > interesting. Yet, none of that will be able to show who you are. > > > > You are not a state that you experience, nor a concept you form, nor > > the sense of being a self or Self or anything else. > > > > To know who you are isn't to be aware of an object, nor is it > > awareness itself (because that just turns " awareness " into an > object), > > nor is it pure subjectivity (you only have subject when you have > > object, and vice versa). > > > > Ideas like " enlightenment " and " waking up " are easily misused in > ways > > that create confusion -- like that ideas that there are people who > > have the quality of enlightenment and others who don't, or those who > > are awake and those who aren't. > > > > Just more dichotomies to cut through. > > > > The brain isn't an obstacle. There aren't any actual obstacles to > who > > you are. Knowing who you are, being, and what is so right now, are > > all the same thing (which isn't a thing). > > > > Thus, the only obstacles are our own beliefs in obstacles, which > > include our beliefs in dichotomizing " what is " and biasing toward > one > > side which we identify with (e.g. " an enlightened state " ) against > the > > other side (e.g. " an unawake state " , which we want to have > distance > > from. " > > > > -- Dan > > > > P; Well, what do you think of that? > > I guess what it boils down to is: simplify, simplify. > > Nothing wrong with stories, they are fun. It's when > > you start believing them than suffering shows up. > > Nothing wrong with awareness, or consciousness > > either. No much point in being something that can't > > be felt, and them, still that we are. So simplify, simplify, > > pitch your tent in awareness, but feel free to roam the > > country site. > > > > pete > > > > > > > Without any beLIEf to hold one back, in total awareness, the story of > I AM is being written, > no need for cue-cards. > > What part of 'Your' life would you have given away now? > > eh? > > Love, > Ana > Oh Ana, Let old Pete simplify if that is his calling. It usually doesn't take too long to undersatnd that the attempt to simplify only further complicates. Sometimes you just have to let them go full cycle. Pete, I have a pair of old scissors that you are welcome to use. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5@> wrote: > > > > > > > P: There is no such thing as eternal anything. > > > > Only this moment, moment by moment. > > > > It's so easy to deal with anything for just > > > > a moment. It's when we try to hold on, and > > > > project a future that things become complicated, > > > > and difficult to bear, and suffering begins. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > _ > > > > _ > > > > I like that direction in talking, Pete. And also the important and > > > > often useful story of the " in the moment " thing is also a > > developed > > > > story when talking. just like the " eternal anything " you > > reference. > > > > That said, the active projection of future-speak and holding- on > > > > behavior in mental activity sure does sem to create a heck of > > alot more > > > > misery than the barely embellished arisings on the ground, {hold > > the > > > > anchovies! ;-) }. I think we can't talk about " un " embellished > > > > arisings, we being humans with a view and a way of talking. > > Perhaps > > > > experience itself is the least embellished.Again, it depends on > > your > > > > story line/view. Yes, and all that's a story too. I like > > stories, I > > > > honor stories, as long as they don't get out of hand and start > > making a > > > > mess of other beings and the planets existence. I guess I am from > > the > > > > story-light school of interdependence, cooperation and sit- down > > dinner > > > > dually-not-dual school of philospophy that has neither a Dean, a > > Board > > > > of Trustees nor a Founder Emeritus. > > > > > > > > DanielS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Dan who isn't the other Dan, > > > The other other Dan, by the way, > > > is talking a storm about what 'we' really > > > are: > > > > > > " Stu -- > > > > > > I looked up the Google search. Yes, I know there's a lot of > > research > > > going on about states of the brain and religious experience. > > > > > > It's interesting stuff -- I think brain research in general is > > pretty > > > interesting. Yet, none of that will be able to show who you are. > > > > > > You are not a state that you experience, nor a concept you form, nor > > > the sense of being a self or Self or anything else. > > > > > > To know who you are isn't to be aware of an object, nor is it > > > awareness itself (because that just turns " awareness " into an > > object), > > > nor is it pure subjectivity (you only have subject when you have > > > object, and vice versa). > > > > > > Ideas like " enlightenment " and " waking up " are easily misused in > > ways > > > that create confusion -- like that ideas that there are people who > > > have the quality of enlightenment and others who don't, or those who > > > are awake and those who aren't. > > > > > > Just more dichotomies to cut through. > > > > > > The brain isn't an obstacle. There aren't any actual obstacles to > > who > > > you are. Knowing who you are, being, and what is so right now, are > > > all the same thing (which isn't a thing). > > > > > > Thus, the only obstacles are our own beliefs in obstacles, which > > > include our beliefs in dichotomizing " what is " and biasing toward > > one > > > side which we identify with (e.g. " an enlightened state " ) against > > the > > > other side (e.g. " an unawake state " , which we want to have > > distance > > > from. " > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > P; Well, what do you think of that? > > > I guess what it boils down to is: simplify, simplify. > > > Nothing wrong with stories, they are fun. It's when > > > you start believing them than suffering shows up. > > > Nothing wrong with awareness, or consciousness > > > either. No much point in being something that can't > > > be felt, and them, still that we are. So simplify, simplify, > > > pitch your tent in awareness, but feel free to roam the > > > country site. > > > > > > pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without any beLIEf to hold one back, in total awareness, the story of > > I AM is being written, > > no need for cue-cards. > > > > What part of 'Your' life would you have given away now? > > > > eh? > > > > Love, > > Ana > > > > > > Oh Ana, > > Let old Pete simplify if that is his calling. > > It usually doesn't take too long to undersatnd that the attempt to > simplify only further complicates. > > Sometimes you just have to let them go full cycle. > > > Pete, I have a pair of old scissors that you are welcome to use. > > > > toombaru > shadow puppets who will play (with) me? ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > I appreciate all the comments that have been made on this thread:-) > > > > Dan, reading what you said below resulted in my seeing my egoic self, > > Stu, as a negative pole of a polarity. > > Very interesting:-) > > > > Stu > > What's the positive pole, Stu? The polarity was: " Stu the problem of being Stu " / " Stu the no-Stu " :-) > > " Ego " is one of those words that mean different things to different > people, and can mean different things in different conversations or > contexts. It can mean self, self-center, self-centered > preoccupations, the feeling of existing ... > > I tend to look at " ego " as the result of regulation of emotional > impulses, with the resultant tensioning of the body-mind system often > being experienced as if a " me " were there. As in: " I " don't want this > feeling, or " I " better not act out this impulse. > > So, from that perspective, the " ego " is the inevitable result of > conditioning related to social expression and inhibition of impulses. > > Not something bad, or to be gotten rid of, just to be understood, and > not taken as " all of who I am " - just one aspect of the > totality-movement of life energy. I do not experience being a combination or " totality-movement " . I seem to exist as only two things and those two are always unable to merge into oneness. I am the ego in the Game, and I am a " pure doingness " within sparkling pastel clouds.... Yes... I know that sounds crazy to me also :-) Stu > > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > What's the positive pole, Stu? > > The polarity was: " Stu the problem of being Stu " / " Stu the no-Stu " :-) Ah - I see. So you know Stu not to be Stu? > I do not experience being a combination or " totality-movement " . > I seem to exist as only two things and those two are always unable to > merge into oneness. > I am the ego in the Game, and I am a " pure doingness " within sparkling > pastel clouds.... Yes... I know that sounds crazy to me also :-) > > Stu It makes sense to me. Why expect them to merge into oneness, if they contradict each other? Yet, if you clearly experience both sides at once, and understand them as contradictory, doesn't it end right there? In other words, experience simply is as is, this moment. Experience can't contradict itself, not in the moment, as is. Only competing thought forms can be in contradiction. And clarity this moment, in and as experience, ends it - by ending the attempt to maintain the thought forms as " the truth of what is. " Another way to say this is that you can't experience two opposite and competing thought forms at exactly the same instant. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > > > > What's the positive pole, Stu? > > > > The polarity was: " Stu the problem of being Stu " / " Stu the no-Stu " :-) > > Ah - I see. So you know Stu not to be Stu? I don't know what you are saying? :-) > > > I do not experience being a combination or " totality-movement " . > > I seem to exist as only two things and those two are always unable to > > merge into oneness. > > I am the ego in the Game, and I am a " pure doingness " within sparkling > > pastel clouds.... Yes... I know that sounds crazy to me also :-) > > > > Stu > > It makes sense to me. > > Why expect them to merge into oneness, if they contradict each other? It's not an expectation as much as a goal. If they are opposites and they merge, the " I " becomes or is the neutrality. > > Yet, if you clearly experience both sides at once, and understand them > as contradictory, doesn't it end right there? It hasen't so far. > > In other words, experience simply is as is, this moment. But who is so fearless and clear sighted that they actuall see anything as it is... I see only my ideas and memories and expectations... labels... Stu > > Experience can't contradict itself, not in the moment, as is. > > Only competing thought forms can be in contradiction. > > And clarity this moment, in and as experience, ends it - by ending the > attempt to maintain the thought forms as " the truth of what is. " > > Another way to say this is that you can't experience two opposite and > competing thought forms at exactly the same instant. > > -- D. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > > > What's the positive pole, Stu? > > > > > > The polarity was: " Stu the problem of being Stu " / " Stu the > no-Stu " :-) > > > > Ah - I see. So you know Stu not to be Stu? > > I don't know what you are saying? :-) Which one doesn't know? Your left " I " or your right " I " ? ;-) > > Yet, if you clearly experience both sides at once, and understand them > > as contradictory, doesn't it end right there? > > It hasen't so far. It seems to me that it's ended at the instant of experience as undivided experience. The only thing that I've found that can keep a split sense of self going is reliance on a conceptual self - even if the conceptualizing is unconscious, which it generally is. > > In other words, experience simply is as is, this moment. > > But who is so fearless and clear sighted that they actuall see > anything as it is... I see only my ideas and memories and > expectations... labels... I'm suggesting that your present moment of experience as it is, is this knowing what is as is. How can you be aware of ideas, memories, and expectations apart from your experience of them *now*? So, there is the moment of experience undivided, which is *now* -- which I may attempt to maintain as if divided (into say, me and my feelings, memories, actualities, expectations, etc.) And ... I can simply be aware unsplit, experience as is this moment ... What prevents me from unsplit awareness/being, other than my own activity? I may act to prevent myself from knowing what is by investing in ignorance (ie. splitting into sides, events, things, and selves). But have I really split what is, or am I attempting to keep myself ignorant? I'm suggesting that one's ignorance is ignore-ance, and one does this by splitting awareness, and this splitting is always an attempt rather than an actuality. This activity can be explained as a kind of self-hypnosis that is socially supported along with support by language and memory functions. I come to believe I have a self-center that is my most personal and important possession, and so I'm obligated to keep the self-hypnosis going to maintain what I have. To know what is as is, is very simple, is loss of everything believed to have been had. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 --- " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > --- " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > > > What's the positive pole, Stu? > > > > > > > > The polarity was: " Stu the problem of being Stu " / " Stu the > > no-Stu " :-) > > > > > > Ah - I see. So you know Stu not to be Stu? > > > > I don't know what you are saying? :-) > > Which one doesn't know? > > Your left " I " or your right " I " ? ;-) > > > > > Yet, if you clearly experience both sides at once, and understand them > > > as contradictory, doesn't it end right there? > > > > It hasen't so far. > > It seems to me that it's ended at the instant of experience as > undivided experience. That's called " as is " . I have never known anyone that in their daily lives is so aware of the " now " that they see things as is. There are therapies though, that get a person to look at one thing and see it as is. I would love to live every moment seeing things as they actually are:-) > > The only thing that I've found that can keep a split sense of self > going is reliance on a conceptual self - even if the conceptualizing > is unconscious, which it generally is. You mean a mentally fabricated self?... yes, very good observation:-) > > > > In other words, experience simply is as is, this moment. > > > > But who is so fearless and clear sighted that they actuall see > > anything as it is... I see only my ideas and memories and > > expectations... labels... > > I'm suggesting that your present moment of experience as it is, is > this knowing what is as is. > > How can you be aware of ideas, memories, and expectations apart from > your experience of them *now*? I imagine that living in the " now " is a goal of mine and everyone on any spiritual list. I believe people don't experience things in the " now " , they experience what their mind shows them, which is a lie. Lies persist because they go uninspected. Truths are understood only for an instant and then they are gone:-) > > So, there is the moment of experience undivided, which is *now* -- > which I may attempt to maintain as if divided (into say, me and my > feelings, memories, actualities, expectations, etc.) > > And ... I can simply be aware unsplit, experience as is this moment ... I don't know you, but if you are the average person you don't really do the above as a daily way of life. To simply be aware of the " unsplit " is so easy it is very hard:-) > > What prevents me from unsplit awareness/being, other than my own > activity? I can't speak for you, for me, that which is at first curious and then interesting and then " me " ... is the " game " , and,to me, the game can't be played in the " now " . I may act to prevent myself from knowing what is by > investing in ignorance (ie. splitting into sides, events, things, and > selves). But have I really split what is, or am I attempting to keep > myself ignorant? You are attempting to keep yourself from losing the illusory game. I'm suggesting that one's ignorance is ignore-ance, > and one does this by splitting awareness, and this splitting is always > an attempt rather than an actuality. This activity can be explained > as a kind of self-hypnosis that is socially supported along with > support by language and memory functions. I come to believe I have a > self-center that is my most personal and important possession, and so > I'm obligated to keep the self-hypnosis going to maintain what I have. I agree completely:-) > > To know what is as is, is very simple, is loss of everything believed > to have been had. It's so simple that its very hard... Stu > > > > -- D. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > That's called " as is " . I have never known anyone that in their daily > lives is so aware of the " now " that they see things as is. There are > therapies though, that get a person to look at one thing and see it as > is. I would love to live every moment seeing things as they actually > are:-) You can't see what is as an object. Objects are your own consructs. Wherever therapy takes you, it will be what you construct from and of the therapy, along with everything else you experience -- yet your experience is always only " this moment as is. " What is, is just what is so now, and you are not existing apart from this present moment of experience as is, and whatever constructs are involved (and their deconstructing). You'll never see things more as they are, then as this is exactly now, this moment. > I imagine that living in the " now " is a goal of mine and everyone on > any spiritual list. I believe people don't experience things in the > " now " , they experience what their mind shows them, which is a lie. > Lies persist because they go uninspected. Truths are understood only > for an instant and then they are gone:-) And so it is with " you, " the so-called " inspector. " Here/gone! A lie itself, judging lies of its own constructing. There isn't a constructor apart from the contructing, which appears as if constructions as things existed. > I don't know you, but if you are the average person you don't really > do the above as a daily way of life. To simply be aware of the > " unsplit " is so easy it is very hard:-) Of course I can't. I am a construct. I am here/gone. I never existed separately in the first place, to have an experience of my own, to be aware of things in a special way that belongs to me. > You are attempting to keep yourself from losing the illusory game. Yes, and it is lost before it began. > It's so simple that its very hard... Yes, I want to run away from this simplicity, that won't allow me to have myself. And that is all I can be, a compulsive running away that can't afford to be aware, that has to pretend it can arrive and have. Sad, but so it is. ;-) -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> > wrote: > > > > > That's called " as is " . I have never known anyone that in their > daily > > lives is so aware of the " now " that they see things as is. There are > > therapies though, that get a person to look at one thing and see it > as > > is. I would love to live every moment seeing things as they actually > > are:-) > > You can't see what is as an object. Objects are your own consructs. > > Wherever therapy takes you, it will be what you construct from and of > the therapy, along with everything else you experience -- yet your > experience is always only " this moment as is. " > > What is, is just what is so now, and you are not existing apart from > this present moment of experience as is, and whatever constructs are > involved (and their deconstructing). > > You'll never see things more as they are, then as this is exactly > now, this moment. I have no idea what that means... > > > I imagine that living in the " now " is a goal of mine and everyone on > > any spiritual list. I believe people don't experience things in the > > " now " , they experience what their mind shows them, which is a lie. > > Lies persist because they go uninspected. Truths are understood only > > for an instant and then they are gone:-) > > And so it is with " you, " the so-called " inspector. " Here/gone! A > lie itself, judging lies of its own constructing. There isn't a > constructor apart from the contructing, which appears as if > constructions as things existed. I agree with that completely, but Stu still feels trapped. So tell it to him, not me:-) > > > I don't know you, but if you are the average person you don't really > > do the above as a daily way of life. To simply be aware of the > > " unsplit " is so easy it is very hard:-) > > Of course I can't. I am a construct. I am here/gone. I never > existed separately in the first place, to have an experience of my > own, to be aware of things in a special way that belongs to me. > I think the problem here is that you are telling me a logical story that I agree with, but my other stories are far stronger and more real to me. Logic and stories don't matter here... realization matters and I haven't realized yet. > > You are attempting to keep yourself from losing the illusory game. > > Yes, and it is lost before it began. > > > It's so simple that its very hard... > > Yes, I want to run away from this simplicity, that won't allow me to > have myself. And that is all I can be, a compulsive running away > that can't afford to be aware, that has to pretend it can arrive and > have. > > Sad, but so it is. > ;-) > > -- D. > But that is a story too... The story can't stop the story though... But Katie might ask if this is all really true?:-) Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > >D: > > You'll never see things more as they are, then as this is exactly > > now, this moment. > > S: I have no idea what that means... D: True, because this now isn't an idea of yours (or mine) and doesn't contribute one iota of " meaning " to me. > > And so it is with " you, " the so-called " inspector. " Here/gone! A > > lie itself, judging lies of its own constructing. There isn't a > > constructor apart from the contructing, which appears as if > > constructions as things existed. > > S: I agree with that completely, but Stu still feels trapped. > So tell it to him, not me:-) D: You can try all you want, but you'll never get Stu to hear that he is the trapping of himself. > I think the problem here is that you are telling me a logical story > that I agree with, but my other stories are far stronger and more real > to me. Logic and stories don't matter here... realization matters and > I haven't realized yet. D: The idea that I am going to realize something, is just a graspingness. And that is all " me " can be. > The story can't stop the story though... > > But Katie might ask if this is all really true?:-) D: The truth is what is so. You can't step out of it, to ask a question about it. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > >D: > > > You'll never see things more as they are, then as this is exactly > > > now, this moment. > > > > S: I have no idea what that means... > > D: True, because this now isn't an idea of yours (or mine) and > doesn't contribute one iota of " meaning " to me. > > > > And so it is with " you, " the so-called " inspector. " Here/gone! A > > > lie itself, judging lies of its own constructing. There isn't a > > > constructor apart from the contructing, which appears as if > > > constructions as things existed. > > > > S: I agree with that completely, but Stu still feels trapped. > > So tell it to him, not me:-) > > D: You can try all you want, but you'll never get Stu to hear that he > is the trapping of himself. > > > I think the problem here is that you are telling me a logical story > > that I agree with, but my other stories are far stronger and more real > > to me. Logic and stories don't matter here... realization matters and > > I haven't realized yet. > > D: The idea that I am going to realize something, is just a > graspingness. And that is all " me " can be. > > > The story can't stop the story though... > > > > But Katie might ask if this is all really true?:-) > > D: The truth is what is so. You can't step out of it, to ask a > question about it. > > -- D. Hi Dan..here we can agree on something. And generally speaking I am in accord with your thoughts on this string 100%. But one question does arise. Whereas I admit to the fact: .. " The truth is what is so. You can't step out of it, to ask a question about it. " ...is it possible then to step outside of it to make such a statement regarding it's nature as has been done in that statement? Just a question that occurs to me on reading it. Although as I said I do agree with what it's saying, I do see an existential conundrum raising it's head upon saying or even agreeing with it. in peace........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> > wrote: > > > > > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > >D: > > > > You'll never see things more as they are, then as this is > exactly > > > > now, this moment. > > > > > > S: I have no idea what that means... > > > > D: True, because this now isn't an idea of yours (or mine) and > > doesn't contribute one iota of " meaning " to me. > > > > > > And so it is with " you, " the so-called " inspector. " > Here/gone! A > > > > lie itself, judging lies of its own constructing. There isn't > a > > > > constructor apart from the contructing, which appears as if > > > > constructions as things existed. > > > > > > S: I agree with that completely, but Stu still feels trapped. > > > So tell it to him, not me:-) > > > > D: You can try all you want, but you'll never get Stu to hear that > he > > is the trapping of himself. > > > > > I think the problem here is that you are telling me a logical > story > > > that I agree with, but my other stories are far stronger and more > real > > > to me. Logic and stories don't matter here... realization > matters and > > > I haven't realized yet. > > > > D: The idea that I am going to realize something, is just a > > graspingness. And that is all " me " can be. > > > > > The story can't stop the story though... > > > > > > But Katie might ask if this is all really true?:-) > > > > D: The truth is what is so. You can't step out of it, to ask a > > question about it. > > > > -- D. > > > Hi Dan..here we can agree on something. And generally speaking I am > in accord with your thoughts on this string 100%. But one question > does arise. Whereas I admit to the fact: .. " The truth is what is > so. You can't step out of it, to ask a question about it. " ...is it > possible then to step outside of it to make such a statement > regarding it's nature as has been done in that statement? Just a > question that occurs to me on reading it. Although as I said I do > agree with what it's saying, I do see an existential conundrum > raising it's head upon saying or even agreeing with it. > > in peace........bob > (((((((Robert)))))) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >D: > > > > > You'll never see things more as they are, then as this is > > exactly > > > > > now, this moment. > > > > > > > > S: I have no idea what that means... > > > > > > D: True, because this now isn't an idea of yours (or mine) and > > > doesn't contribute one iota of " meaning " to me. > > > > > > > > And so it is with " you, " the so-called " inspector. " > > Here/gone! A > > > > > lie itself, judging lies of its own constructing. There > isn't > > a > > > > > constructor apart from the contructing, which appears as if > > > > > constructions as things existed. > > > > > > > > S: I agree with that completely, but Stu still feels trapped. > > > > So tell it to him, not me:-) > > > > > > D: You can try all you want, but you'll never get Stu to hear > that > > he > > > is the trapping of himself. > > > > > > > I think the problem here is that you are telling me a logical > > story > > > > that I agree with, but my other stories are far stronger and > more > > real > > > > to me. Logic and stories don't matter here... realization > > matters and > > > > I haven't realized yet. > > > > > > D: The idea that I am going to realize something, is just a > > > graspingness. And that is all " me " can be. > > > > > > > The story can't stop the story though... > > > > > > > > But Katie might ask if this is all really true?:-) > > > > > > D: The truth is what is so. You can't step out of it, to ask a > > > question about it. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Hi Dan..here we can agree on something. And generally speaking I am > > in accord with your thoughts on this string 100%. But one question > > does arise. Whereas I admit to the fact: .. " The truth is what is > > so. You can't step out of it, to ask a question about it. " ...is it > > possible then to step outside of it to make such a statement > > regarding it's nature as has been done in that statement? Just a > > question that occurs to me on reading it. Although as I said I do > > agree with what it's saying, I do see an existential conundrum > > raising it's head upon saying or even agreeing with it. > > > > in peace........bob > > > > > > (((((((Robert)))))) thank you ana.......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > Hi Dan..here we can agree on something. And generally speaking I am > in accord with your thoughts on this string 100%. But one question > does arise. Whereas I admit to the fact: .. " The truth is what is > so. You can't step out of it, to ask a question about it. " ...is it > possible then to step outside of it to make such a statement > regarding it's nature as has been done in that statement? Just a > question that occurs to me on reading it. Although as I said I do > agree with what it's saying, I do see an existential conundrum > raising it's head upon saying or even agreeing with it. > > in peace........bob Hi Bob -- What is true makes liars of us all. Yes, I did lie -- even in naming it " what is so. " Am I calling Buddha and Jesus liars? Uh, oh, shouldn't be doing that - I may not get into heaven after all. Looks like I'm up the creek without a paddle again! And no one to blame but myself. Damn! Peace upon ya -- -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > Hi Dan..here we can agree on something. And generally speaking I am > > in accord with your thoughts on this string 100%. But one question > > does arise. Whereas I admit to the fact: .. " The truth is what is > > so. You can't step out of it, to ask a question about it. " ...is it > > possible then to step outside of it to make such a statement > > regarding it's nature as has been done in that statement? Just a > > question that occurs to me on reading it. Although as I said I do > > agree with what it's saying, I do see an existential conundrum > > raising it's head upon saying or even agreeing with it. > > > > in peace........bob > > Hi Bob -- > > What is true makes liars of us all. > > Yes, I did lie -- even in naming it " what is so. " > > Am I calling Buddha and Jesus liars? > > Uh, oh, shouldn't be doing that - I may not get into heaven after all. > > Looks like I'm up the creek without a paddle again! > > And no one to blame but myself. > > Damn! > > > Peace upon ya -- > > -- Dan LOL........well Dan it's an imaginary creek and no on can be blamed or absolved of anything that isn't......well... anything at all. and (just my thought here) heavens not a 'place' it's a heart. and I think you've got the goods. Thanks for the heartsease of your peace. now here's wishing you the ataraxis of that same peaceful notion. ......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > >D: > > > You'll never see things more as they are, then as this is exactly > > > now, this moment. > > > > S: I have no idea what that means... > > D: True, because this now isn't an idea of yours (or mine) and > doesn't contribute one iota of " meaning " to me. > > > > And so it is with " you, " the so-called " inspector. " Here/gone! A > > > lie itself, judging lies of its own constructing. There isn't a > > > constructor apart from the contructing, which appears as if > > > constructions as things existed. > > > > S: I agree with that completely, but Stu still feels trapped. > > So tell it to him, not me:-) > > D: You can try all you want, but you'll never get Stu to hear that he > is the trapping of himself. > > > I think the problem here is that you are telling me a logical story > > that I agree with, but my other stories are far stronger and more real > > to me. Logic and stories don't matter here... realization matters and > > I haven't realized yet. > > D: The idea that I am going to realize something, is just a > graspingness. And that is all " me " can be. > Hmmm!:-) The problem is that I am only aware of grasping when I am not grasping. > > The story can't stop the story though... > > > > But Katie might ask if this is all really true?:-) > > D: The truth is what is so. You can't step out of it, to ask a > question about it. True, but whatever you and I say is never the truth. Stu > > -- D. > 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.