Guest guest Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > What I experience is that the person or ego appears as " self the > problem or quest " , while also feeling that he or she HAS the problem > or quest. > It seems that the self or ego " sees " the problem and " is " the problem, > both at once. > > Stu If the person is the problem, then how can the person be on a quest to resolve the problem? The way you've described it, as long as the person is there, there is a problem. So how can the person be on such a quest? Doesn't make sense to me - because the way you describe it, the quest itself is just part of the problem which is the person. If the person is a contradiction, and you are experiencing it, then doesn't that resolve the contradiction? That is, doesn't your experience of what this is, end it, the moment you clearly experience it -- the moment you clearly experience the contradiction as a contradiction? That's the end of it, isn't it? -- 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: > > > What I experience is that the person or ego appears as " self the > > problem or quest " , while also feeling that he or she HAS the problem > > or quest. > > It seems that the self or ego " sees " the problem and " is " the problem, > > both at once. > > > > Stu > > If the person is the problem, then how can the person be on a quest to > resolve the problem? I can only speak for myself:-) A mind focuses on attaining the goal that the ego sets. An ego fixates on a problem for verious reason and to various degrees. The stronger the desire the more fixated or sucked into the beingness of the problem he or she becomes. The physical universe is a problem within a game that involves overcoming the physical universe (in some way) in order to reach a goal. We strive to have or avoid something within the game and if we get too engrosed we become an object in the game, and forget that we aren't the object. That is my story:-) The way you've described it, as long as the > person is there, there is a problem. So how can the person be on such > a quest? Doesn't make sense to me - because the way you describe it, > the quest itself is just part of the problem which is the person. > > If the person is a contradiction, and you are experiencing it, then > doesn't that resolve the contradiction? That is, doesn't your > experience of what this is, end it, the moment you clearly experience > it -- the moment you clearly experience the contradiction as a > contradiction? The " me " that is observing the situation is a Siamese twin that is stuck to the " me " that is the problem but does not see. So the problem is lack of integration of the two parts of a player in the game, or ego. Stu > > That's the end of it, isn't it? > > -- D. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 In a message dated 5/19/2006 11:53:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, kenj02001 writes: > om the Internet > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > >> > >>Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > >> > >>>What I experience is that the person or ego appears as " self the > >>>problem or quest " , while also feeling that he or she HAS the problem > >>>or quest. > >>>It seems that the self or ego " sees " the problem and " is " the > problem, > >>>both at once. > >>> > >>>Stu > >> > >>If the person is the problem, then how can the person be on a quest to > >>resolve the problem? > > > >I can only speak for myself:-) > >A mind focuses on attaining the goal that the ego sets. An ego > >fixates on a problem for verious reason and to various degrees. > >The stronger the desire the more fixated or sucked into the beingness > >of the problem he or she becomes. > >The physical universe is a problem within a game that involves > >overcoming the physical universe (in some way) in order to reach a > >goal. We strive to have or avoid something within the game and if we > >get too engrosed we become an object in the game, and forget that we > >aren't the object. > >That is my story:-) > > > > The way you've described it, as long as the > >>person is there, there is a problem. So how can the person be on such > >>a quest? Doesn't make sense to me - because the way you describe it, > >>the quest itself is just part of the problem which is the person. > >> > >>If the person is a contradiction, and you are experiencing it, then > >>doesn't that resolve the contradiction? That is, doesn't your > >>experience of what this is, end it, the moment you clearly experience > >>it -- the moment you clearly experience the contradiction as a > >>contradiction? > > > >The " me " that is observing the situation is a Siamese twin that is > >stuck to the " me " that is the problem but does not see. So the > >problem is lack of integration of the two parts of a player in the > >game, or ego. > > > >Stu > > > >> > >>That's the end of it, isn't it? > >> > >>-- D. > >> > > > ** Hey Stu, > > 'A mind' is just what it constructs, it's not anything apart-- > like a believer, or an observer, or an observed object. > > We don't *actually* have a problem requiring answers or > integration. The response of (conditioned) knowledge and > (accepted) belief has to be understood for what it is and > relinquished, in favor of an undivided knowing and direct > perceiving. > > You can smile and say it's your story, but it's not > harmless.... > > Ken L.E: This is a reminder that mind is a creation of brain, which is a creation of the cellular community called the human organism. And that ego, person, or self, is the creation or expression of mind. Each level has no independent existence of its own and relies on the supporting levels for its apparent existence. No brain, no mind, no ego, person, or self. In this sense there is the question of who or what is in control, and who or what is the reality of the situation Most of these discussions see the problem and solution within the realm of mind, and ignore the " neural network " of brain in and by which this all occurrs. If you start with: 'I am the representative of a commnity of cells and am authorized to defend, protect and enhance the survival of my community, you will have this discussion from a more practical and realistic place, and understand the nature of the I am state as to its purpose and existence. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote: > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > > What I experience is that the person or ego appears as " self the > > > problem or quest " , while also feeling that he or she HAS the problem > > > or quest. > > > It seems that the self or ego " sees " the problem and " is " the problem, > > > both at once. > > > > > > Stu > > > > If the person is the problem, then how can the person be on a quest to > > resolve the problem? > > I can only speak for myself:-) > A mind focuses on attaining the goal that the ego sets. An ego > fixates on a problem for verious reason and to various degrees. > The stronger the desire the more fixated or sucked into the beingness > of the problem he or she becomes. > The physical universe is a problem within a game that involves > overcoming the physical universe (in some way) in order to reach a > goal. We strive to have or avoid something within the game and if we > get too engrosed we become an object in the game, and forget that we > aren't the object. > That is my story:-) > > The way you've described it, as long as the > > person is there, there is a problem. So how can the person be on such > > a quest? Doesn't make sense to me - because the way you describe it, > > the quest itself is just part of the problem which is the person. > > > > If the person is a contradiction, and you are experiencing it, then > > doesn't that resolve the contradiction? That is, doesn't your > > experience of what this is, end it, the moment you clearly experience > > it -- the moment you clearly experience the contradiction as a > > contradiction? > > The " me " that is observing the situation is a Siamese twin that is > stuck to the " me " that is the problem but does not see. So the > problem is lack of integration of the two parts of a player in the > game, or ego. > > Stu > > > > > That's the end of it, isn't it? > > > > -- D. > > > ** Hey Stu, 'A mind' is just what it constructs, it's not anything apart-- like a believer, or an observer, or an observed object. We don't *actually* have a problem requiring answers or integration. The response of (conditioned) knowledge and (accepted) belief has to be understood for what it is and relinquished, in favor of an undivided knowing and direct perceiving. You can smile and say it's your story, but it's not harmless.... Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 epston wrote: > > In a message dated 5/19/2006 11:53:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > kenj02001 writes: > > > om the Internet > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > >> > > >>Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > >> > > >>>What I experience is that the person or ego appears as " self the > > >>>problem or quest " , while also feeling that he or she HAS the problem > > >>>or quest. > > >>>It seems that the self or ego " sees " the problem and " is " the > > problem, > > >>>both at once. > > >>> > > >>>Stu > > >> > > >>If the person is the problem, then how can the person be on a quest to > > >>resolve the problem? > > > > > >I can only speak for myself:-) > > >A mind focuses on attaining the goal that the ego sets. An ego > > >fixates on a problem for verious reason and to various degrees. > > >The stronger the desire the more fixated or sucked into the beingness > > >of the problem he or she becomes. > > >The physical universe is a problem within a game that involves > > >overcoming the physical universe (in some way) in order to reach a > > >goal. We strive to have or avoid something within the game and if we > > >get too engrosed we become an object in the game, and forget that we > > >aren't the object. > > >That is my story:-) > > > > > > The way you've described it, as long as the > > >>person is there, there is a problem. So how can the person be on such > > >>a quest? Doesn't make sense to me - because the way you describe it, > > >>the quest itself is just part of the problem which is the person. > > >> > > >>If the person is a contradiction, and you are experiencing it, then > > >>doesn't that resolve the contradiction? That is, doesn't your > > >>experience of what this is, end it, the moment you clearly experience > > >>it -- the moment you clearly experience the contradiction as a > > >>contradiction? > > > > > >The " me " that is observing the situation is a Siamese twin that is > > >stuck to the " me " that is the problem but does not see. So the > > >problem is lack of integration of the two parts of a player in the > > >game, or ego. > > > > > >Stu > > > > > >> > > >>That's the end of it, isn't it? > > >> > > >>-- D. > > >> > > > > > ** Hey Stu, > > > > 'A mind' is just what it constructs, it's not anything apart-- > > like a believer, or an observer, or an observed object. > > > > We don't *actually* have a problem requiring answers or > > integration. The response of (conditioned) knowledge and > > (accepted) belief has to be understood for what it is and > > relinquished, in favor of an undivided knowing and direct > > perceiving. > > > > You can smile and say it's your story, but it's not > > harmless.... > > > > Ken > > > L.E: This is a reminder that mind is a creation of brain, which is a creation > of the cellular community called the human organism. And that ego, person, > or self, is the creation or expression of mind. Each level has no independent > existence of its own and relies on the supporting levels for its apparent > existence. No brain, no mind, no ego, person, or self. In this sense there is > the question of who or what is in control, and who or what is the reality of the > situation Most of these discussions see the problem and solution within the > realm of mind, and ignore the " neural network " of brain in and by which this > all occurrs. If you start with: 'I am the representative of a commnity of > cells and am authorized to defend, protect and enhance the survival of my > community, you will have this discussion from a more practical and realistic place, > and understand the nature of the I am state as to its purpose and existence. > > Larry Epston > > From where I sit the concept of the " brain enlightenment " and the " spiritual enlightenment " don't contradict each other:-) So I can agree with your story and still believe in the story that we take our spiritual mind with us from life to life:-) The truth is to be found where those two stories point. I personally love a paradox:-) The paradox being that they don't point at anything... and that is somehow comforting to me... Stu > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 5/19/2006 11:53:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > kenj02001 writes: > > > om the Internet > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > > > > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > >> > > >>Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote: > > >> > > >>>What I experience is that the person or ego appears as " self the > > >>>problem or quest " , while also feeling that he or she HAS the problem > > >>>or quest. > > >>>It seems that the self or ego " sees " the problem and " is " the > > problem, > > >>>both at once. > > >>> > > >>>Stu > > >> > > >>If the person is the problem, then how can the person be on a quest to > > >>resolve the problem? > > > > > >I can only speak for myself:-) > > >A mind focuses on attaining the goal that the ego sets. An ego > > >fixates on a problem for verious reason and to various degrees. > > >The stronger the desire the more fixated or sucked into the beingness > > >of the problem he or she becomes. > > >The physical universe is a problem within a game that involves > > >overcoming the physical universe (in some way) in order to reach a > > >goal. We strive to have or avoid something within the game and if we > > >get too engrosed we become an object in the game, and forget that we > > >aren't the object. > > >That is my story:-) > > > > > > The way you've described it, as long as the > > >>person is there, there is a problem. So how can the person be on such > > >>a quest? Doesn't make sense to me - because the way you describe it, > > >>the quest itself is just part of the problem which is the person. > > >> > > >>If the person is a contradiction, and you are experiencing it, then > > >>doesn't that resolve the contradiction? That is, doesn't your > > >>experience of what this is, end it, the moment you clearly experience > > >>it -- the moment you clearly experience the contradiction as a > > >>contradiction? > > > > > >The " me " that is observing the situation is a Siamese twin that is > > >stuck to the " me " that is the problem but does not see. So the > > >problem is lack of integration of the two parts of a player in the > > >game, or ego. > > > > > >Stu > > > > > >> > > >>That's the end of it, isn't it? > > >> > > >>-- D. > > >> > > > > > ** Hey Stu, > > > > 'A mind' is just what it constructs, it's not anything apart-- > > like a believer, or an observer, or an observed object. > > > > We don't *actually* have a problem requiring answers or > > integration. The response of (conditioned) knowledge and > > (accepted) belief has to be understood for what it is and > > relinquished, in favor of an undivided knowing and direct > > perceiving. > > > > You can smile and say it's your story, but it's not > > harmless.... > > > > Ken > > > L.E: This is a reminder that mind is a creation of brain, which is a creation > of the cellular community called the human organism. And that ego, person, > or self, is the creation or expression of mind. Each level has no independent > existence of its own and relies on the supporting levels for its apparent > existence. No brain, no mind, no ego, person, or self. In this sense there is > the question of who or what is in control, and who or what is the reality of the > situation Most of these discussions see the problem and solution within the > realm of mind, and ignore the " neural network " of brain in and by which this > all occurrs. If you start with: 'I am the representative of a commnity of > cells and am authorized to defend, protect and enhance the survival of my > community, you will have this discussion from a more practical and realistic place, > and understand the nature of the I am state as to its purpose and existence. > > Larry Epston ** Well, I am the representative of a community..... and I say it's all knowledge...running amok! ;=] > > > > > > 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.