Guest guest Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > 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. > Bill, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.