Guest guest Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 > He (Bill) hasn't seemed willing to follow me, at least not as far as > I'd have preferred. Reminds me that I have intended to get back to you on something. Perhaps you recall back when you were quite new to the list and talking about " I am " a lot, and while that was not my preferred notation at all, there was something compelling in the way that you put it. I said at the time that I would give what you had said consideration (back-burner style). Well, I have done just that and I had a distinct insight in connection with it. When I was meditating the other night I saw something that was *very* interesting and that would not have come to notice I am sure if not for those notions of yours in the back of my mind. That being said... the tough part is that I am pretty much at a loss as far as communicating about it. At risk of making no sense at all here is a wild shot: Meditating and beholding an intense wire-like energy force... as if in the head... maybe more or less the " third eye " region before/between the eyes... an energy moving in a loop of sorts... and then did a kind of " flip " where the " head and tail " of the energy were reversed... as if the energy were seeking its own tail and now what had been the tail was now the head etc. Anyway, what struck with the " flip " was that one " end " was the " I " ... and the other the " am " ... as if the " I " and the " am " were weaving in an embrace (and the polarity of the embrace could " flip " ). With the " flip " it was the " I " that was to the fore... and the " usual mode " for me was (it was clear) the other way around. Hence my proclivity for " am " over " I " . When with the " I " aspect the sense of " choice " (something you talked about) seemed pretty natural, though it was a perpetually suspended " choice " . I should also mention that by the end of the meditation the " I " and the " am " ... the entire cycling energy... had merged so the distinction was no more... which is the natural state. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > > He (Bill) hasn't seemed willing to follow me, at least not as far as > > I'd have preferred. > > Reminds me that I have intended to get back to you > on something. Perhaps you recall back when you were > quite new to the list and talking about " I am " a lot, > and while that was not my preferred notation at all, > there was something compelling in the way that you > put it. I said at the time that I would give what you > had said consideration (back-burner style). > > Well, I have done just that and I had a distinct > insight in connection with it. When I was meditating > the other night I saw something that was *very* > interesting and that would not have come to notice > I am sure if not for those notions of yours in the > back of my mind. > > That being said... the tough part is that I am pretty > much at a loss as far as communicating about it. At > risk of making no sense at all here is a wild shot: > > Meditating and beholding an intense wire-like energy > force... as if in the head... maybe more or less the > " third eye " region before/between the eyes... an energy > moving in a loop of sorts... and then did a kind of > " flip " where the " head and tail " of the energy were > reversed... as if the energy were seeking its own tail > and now what had been the tail was now the head etc. > > Anyway, what struck with the " flip " was that one " end " > was the " I " ... and the other the " am " ... as if the > " I " and the " am " were weaving in an embrace (and the > polarity of the embrace could " flip " ). > > With the " flip " it was the " I " that was to the fore... > and the " usual mode " for me was (it was clear) the > other way around. Hence my proclivity for " am " over > " I " . > > When with the " I " aspect the sense of " choice " (something > you talked about) seemed pretty natural, though it was > a perpetually suspended " choice " . > > I should also mention that by the end of the meditation > the " I " and the " am " ... the entire cycling energy... > had merged so the distinction was no more... which is > the natural state. > > > Bill > Thank you for envigorating the thread. I guess I'm still at a loss as to what prevents us from establishing a solid ground from which to mine our currency, vis a vis, the witness or " I. " I know the notion of the witness -- who watches, experiences, observes, compares and contrasts all the things you describe -- is or (or,now, was -- is that safe to say?) an abstraction to you. But now you seem to say that you have kind of witnessed it, witnessed this witness, this emphasis on the " I. " Is it a quiescence, a calm, a kind of eye of the storm, now seen from the outside in, even if ever so fleetingly? Maybe if we can expand on that experience, we can begin to reach an understanding, if you'd like to proceed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > > He (Bill) hasn't seemed willing to follow me, at least not as far as > > > I'd have preferred. > > > > Reminds me that I have intended to get back to you > > on something. Perhaps you recall back when you were > > quite new to the list and talking about " I am " a lot, > > and while that was not my preferred notation at all, > > there was something compelling in the way that you > > put it. I said at the time that I would give what you > > had said consideration (back-burner style). > > > > Well, I have done just that and I had a distinct > > insight in connection with it. When I was meditating > > the other night I saw something that was *very* > > interesting and that would not have come to notice > > I am sure if not for those notions of yours in the > > back of my mind. > > > > That being said... the tough part is that I am pretty > > much at a loss as far as communicating about it. At > > risk of making no sense at all here is a wild shot: > > > > Meditating and beholding an intense wire-like energy > > force... as if in the head... maybe more or less the > > " third eye " region before/between the eyes... an energy > > moving in a loop of sorts... and then did a kind of > > " flip " where the " head and tail " of the energy were > > reversed... as if the energy were seeking its own tail > > and now what had been the tail was now the head etc. > > > > Anyway, what struck with the " flip " was that one " end " > > was the " I " ... and the other the " am " ... as if the > > " I " and the " am " were weaving in an embrace (and the > > polarity of the embrace could " flip " ). > > > > With the " flip " it was the " I " that was to the fore... > > and the " usual mode " for me was (it was clear) the > > other way around. Hence my proclivity for " am " over > > " I " . > > > > When with the " I " aspect the sense of " choice " (something > > you talked about) seemed pretty natural, though it was > > a perpetually suspended " choice " . > > > > I should also mention that by the end of the meditation > > the " I " and the " am " ... the entire cycling energy... > > had merged so the distinction was no more... which is > > the natural state. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Thank you for envigorating the thread. I guess I'm still at a loss as > to what prevents us from establishing a solid ground from which to > mine our currency, vis a vis, the witness or " I. " I know the notion > of the witness -- who watches, experiences, observes, compares and > contrasts all the things you describe -- is or (or,now, was -- is > that safe to say?) an abstraction to you. But now you seem to say > that you have kind of witnessed it, witnessed this witness, this > emphasis on the " I. " Is it a quiescence, a calm, a kind of eye of the > storm, now seen from the outside in, even if ever so fleetingly? > > Maybe if we can expand on that experience, we can begin to reach an > understanding, if you'd like to proceed... > the reason -- in my case -- " so fleetingly " is that the mere consciousness of that... which is more than a witness really, it is more of a psychic *pressure*, an intense piercingness, the very white-hot tip of that wire-like energy force... the mere consciousness of that triggers a taking of itself as its own object, which is a kind of " melt-down " of that white-hot wire core such that the intense focus of conscious-awareness into such a keenness suddenly expands to fill everywhere, and only a soft luminous everywhere-at-once-ness remains. something like one of those subatomic particles that they discover that has a very brief half-life... and the reason that " mere consciousness " does so trigger is a realization, effectively, that in that awareness- presence of I-intent is an inherent incompleteness that yearns to be transcended, that yearns to be shot-beyond. and that yearning, is that not the pure nature of desire, the pure nature of a longing to transcend, to go beyond, to know not just This, but This-That trans-fused as One? Bill PS: the writing of the first paragraph above was also a quite literal experience of the very thing it describes. 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.