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, Sorry about that last empty post. Hoping this one is not only empty, but has enough vacuum in it, that it draws you in. I read and reread your post. And I still don't know who wrote it. I'm not trying to be cryptic. No one can see one's eye looking, right? Is it just an abstraction, or is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? That there's a something there. I mean, how do you know that it was you had all these experiences? Was there one, or two, or more? And if more than one, who knows that there was more than one? Sky ~*~ 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: > > > > 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, > > Sorry about that last empty post. > > Hoping this one is not only empty, but has enough vacuum in it, that > it draws you in. I read and reread your post. And I still don't know > who wrote it. I'm not trying to be cryptic. > > No one can see one's eye looking, right? Is it just an abstraction, > or is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? That > there's a something there. I mean, how do you know that it was you > had all these experiences? Was there one, or two, or more? And if > more than one, who knows that there was more than one? no knowing Sky, only Being... what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting down what observed as from some remove. consider Einstein's insight in his theory of relativity where he undercuts the notion that the universe can be understood as if viewed from apart. He shows that the observer's existence as part of that universe is reflected in what is observed. What observed cannot be observed as truly apart. = " is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? " no, because deeper than that... it is a looking that is sensing its own " lookingness " ... the separation of itself as object and itself as subject seems virtually to dissolve altogether. it is as if a point of incredible intensity that is absorbed in the sense of its own intensity. There is no space, no here/there, just this intensity that is continually merging back into itself... a fusion that is a meltdown in consciousness of the root sense of separation. consider the center of the sun. The intensity there, the pressure there is said to be so great that atoms cannot maintain their distinctness as entities, and that the matter goes into a " plasma state " where all of the matter is sheer liquid energy... the point of incredible intensity I describe is like that... and any sense of " oneself " , of " space " , of even the very " looking " break down into a primal flux like matter in the center of the sun. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > 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, > > > > Sorry about that last empty post. > > > > Hoping this one is not only empty, but has enough vacuum in it, that > > it draws you in. I read and reread your post. And I still don't know > > who wrote it. I'm not trying to be cryptic. > > > > No one can see one's eye looking, right? Is it just an abstraction, > > or is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? That > > there's a something there. I mean, how do you know that it was you > > had all these experiences? Was there one, or two, or more? And if > > more than one, who knows that there was more than one? > > no knowing Sky, only Being... > > what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting > down what observed as from some remove. > > consider Einstein's insight in his theory of relativity > where he undercuts the notion that the universe can be > understood as if viewed from apart. He shows that the > observer's existence as part of that universe is reflected > in what is observed. What observed cannot be observed as > truly apart. > > = " is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? " > no, because deeper than that... it is a looking that is > sensing its own " lookingness " ... the separation of itself as > object and itself as subject seems virtually to dissolve > altogether. > > it is as if a point of incredible intensity that is absorbed > in the sense of its own intensity. There is no space, no > here/there, just this intensity that is continually merging > back into itself... a fusion that is a meltdown in > consciousness of the root sense of separation. > > consider the center of the sun. The intensity there, the > pressure there is said to be so great that atoms cannot > maintain their distinctness as entities, and that the matter > goes into a " plasma state " where all of the matter is sheer > liquid energy... > > the point of incredible intensity I describe is like that... > and any sense of " oneself " , of " space " , of even the very > " looking " break down into a primal flux like matter in the > center of the sun. > > > Bill > I'm very familiar with these views, Bill. For me, they're not as relevant as they seem to be to you. Nevertheless, for the sake of intellectual consistency, lets interrogate Heisenberg, when he says that we can't find the precise location of an electron because the very act of measurement skews its location. " Mr. H., is this, what you just said, relatively true, or is it true in some absolute sense? " Similarly, when you say, " no knowing Sky, only Being... " Do you know this to be true, or are you only Being that that very statement itself is somehow relevant? And when you say, > > " what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting > down what observed as from some remove. " I'm asking you, precisely, from where are you saying that very sentence I just quoted? How do you know that there was no Contemplator? Who then, is contemplating that statement now? Let's just talk about now. Who is reading this? How do you know, or not know? And if you don't know, then, how do you know that you don't know? (I hope I don't sound like Rumsfeltd. But if I do, I have to confess that he actually makes good sense to me, despite his obvious and obnoxious obfuscations.) Lastly, and I hope this doesn't throw the above off, have you considered that things aren't so cut and dried as Being vs knowing? Have you considered that there might be something that is both, or neither, or a combination of the two -- and that really, it's not a question of either or, but of both and. And that it therefore becomes a question merely of emphasis, and levels of priority? I'm sure you have, what I'm saying is, that's the kind of subtlety I'd like this dialog to simply take for granted and build on. I hope I don't sound condescending. (But I will say that the first sentence of your response did sound condescending to me. I'm not offended, I just want you to be aware that I feel that way.) ~*~ > 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: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > Sorry about that last empty post. > > > > > > Hoping this one is not only empty, but has enough vacuum in it, that > > > it draws you in. I read and reread your post. And I still don't know > > > who wrote it. I'm not trying to be cryptic. > > > > > > No one can see one's eye looking, right? Is it just an abstraction, > > > or is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? That > > > there's a something there. I mean, how do you know that it was you > > > had all these experiences? Was there one, or two, or more? And if > > > more than one, who knows that there was more than one? > > > > no knowing Sky, only Being... > > > > what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting > > down what observed as from some remove. > > > > consider Einstein's insight in his theory of relativity > > where he undercuts the notion that the universe can be > > understood as if viewed from apart. He shows that the > > observer's existence as part of that universe is reflected > > in what is observed. What observed cannot be observed as > > truly apart. > > > > = " is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? " > > no, because deeper than that... it is a looking that is > > sensing its own " lookingness " ... the separation of itself as > > object and itself as subject seems virtually to dissolve > > altogether. > > > > it is as if a point of incredible intensity that is absorbed > > in the sense of its own intensity. There is no space, no > > here/there, just this intensity that is continually merging > > back into itself... a fusion that is a meltdown in > > consciousness of the root sense of separation. > > > > consider the center of the sun. The intensity there, the > > pressure there is said to be so great that atoms cannot > > maintain their distinctness as entities, and that the matter > > goes into a " plasma state " where all of the matter is sheer > > liquid energy... > > > > the point of incredible intensity I describe is like that... > > and any sense of " oneself " , of " space " , of even the very > > " looking " break down into a primal flux like matter in the > > center of the sun. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > I'm very familiar with these views, Bill. > > For me, they're not as relevant as they seem to be to you. > Nevertheless, for the sake of intellectual consistency, lets > interrogate Heisenberg, when he says that we can't find the precise > location of an electron because the very act of measurement skews its > location. " Mr. H., is this, what you just said, relatively true, or > is it true in some absolute sense? " > > Similarly, when you say, > > " no knowing Sky, only Being... " > > Do you know this to be true, or are you only Being that that very > statement itself is somehow relevant? > > And when you say, > > > > " what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting > > down what observed as from some remove. " > > I'm asking you, precisely, from where are you saying that very > sentence I just quoted? How do you know that there was no > Contemplator? Who then, is contemplating that statement now? > > Let's just talk about now. Who is reading this? How do you know, or > not know? And if you don't know, then, how do you know that you don't > know? (I hope I don't sound like Rumsfeltd. But if I do, I have to > confess that he actually makes good sense to me, despite his obvious > and obnoxious obfuscations.) > > Lastly, and I hope this doesn't throw the above off, have you > considered that things aren't so cut and dried as Being vs knowing? > Have you considered that there might be something that is both, or > neither, or a combination of the two -- and that really, it's not a > question of either or, but of both and. And that it therefore becomes > a question merely of emphasis, and levels of priority? > > I'm sure you have, what I'm saying is, that's the kind of subtlety I'd > like this dialog to simply take for granted and build on. I hope I > don't sound condescending. (But I will say that the first sentence of > your response did sound condescending to me. I'm not offended, I just > want you to be aware that I feel that way.) > > ~*~ > > > " to know something is only thought " ... as is " to not know something " ... both knowing-thought and not-knowing-thought...is thought... and all thoughts are only like bubbles in space... then what about space ?... the word " space " is of course just another thought... but just like the word " hot " is not hot at all ....lets not stick with words... dont take them to be what they are not... thought and word are the same bubble..... and a bubble is of no importance whatsoever.... give it power and....poof....your lost on the road of fantasygood and fantasybad....iietsa 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: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > Sorry about that last empty post. > > > > > > Hoping this one is not only empty, but has enough vacuum in it, that > > > it draws you in. I read and reread your post. And I still don't know > > > who wrote it. I'm not trying to be cryptic. > > > > > > No one can see one's eye looking, right? Is it just an abstraction, > > > or is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? That > > > there's a something there. I mean, how do you know that it was you > > > had all these experiences? Was there one, or two, or more? And if > > > more than one, who knows that there was more than one? > > > > no knowing Sky, only Being... > > > > what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting > > down what observed as from some remove. > > > > consider Einstein's insight in his theory of relativity > > where he undercuts the notion that the universe can be > > understood as if viewed from apart. He shows that the > > observer's existence as part of that universe is reflected > > in what is observed. What observed cannot be observed as > > truly apart. > > > > = " is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? " > > no, because deeper than that... it is a looking that is > > sensing its own " lookingness " ... the separation of itself as > > object and itself as subject seems virtually to dissolve > > altogether. > > > > it is as if a point of incredible intensity that is absorbed > > in the sense of its own intensity. There is no space, no > > here/there, just this intensity that is continually merging > > back into itself... a fusion that is a meltdown in > > consciousness of the root sense of separation. > > > > consider the center of the sun. The intensity there, the > > pressure there is said to be so great that atoms cannot > > maintain their distinctness as entities, and that the matter > > goes into a " plasma state " where all of the matter is sheer > > liquid energy... > > > > the point of incredible intensity I describe is like that... > > and any sense of " oneself " , of " space " , of even the very > > " looking " break down into a primal flux like matter in the > > center of the sun. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > I'm very familiar with these views, Bill. > > For me, they're not as relevant as they seem to be to you. > Nevertheless, for the sake of intellectual consistency, lets > interrogate Heisenberg, when he says that we can't find the precise > location of an electron because the very act of measurement skews its > location. " Mr. H., is this, what you just said, relatively true, or > is it true in some absolute sense? " > > Similarly, when you say, > > " no knowing Sky, only Being... " > > Do you know this to be true, or are you only Being that that very > statement itself is somehow relevant? > > And when you say, > > > > " what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting > > down what observed as from some remove. " > > I'm asking you, precisely, from where are you saying that very > sentence I just quoted? How do you know that there was no > Contemplator? Who then, is contemplating that statement now? Here you are playing interogator again, Sky. Asking a question to try to understand what I said is one thing. I'm fine with that. But to ask questions to try to show me holes in what I said, I'm not interested. And the latter is clearly what you are doing here. I described actual experience. I said that it would be iffy putting into words. I am not going to debate with you or anyone the " validity " of what I described. > Let's just talk about now. Who is reading this? This is the same line of questioning that you pursued with me before. I went nowhere then and I am not interested in taking it up again. > How do you know, or > not know? And if you don't know, then, how do you know that you don't > know? (I hope I don't sound like Rumsfeltd. But if I do, I have to > confess that he actually makes good sense to me, despite his obvious > and obnoxious obfuscations.) > > Lastly, and I hope this doesn't throw the above off, have you > considered that things aren't so cut and dried as Being vs knowing? I don't consider *anything* to be cut and dried. I don't live in a world of words at all. Putting into words is always a translation as needed to communicate to others. The description is definitely not the thing. And what I describe is not debatable. I'm describing experience, end of story. I should add that I also have a strong distaste for intellectual debate. If your point of view is at odds with mine, OK and so what. But I am not interested in hashing that kind of thing out. Sorry, if that is what you like to do. > Have you considered that there might be something that is both, or > neither, or a combination of the two -- and that really, it's not a > question of either or, but of both and. And that it therefore becomes > a question merely of emphasis, and levels of priority? As I was attempting to convey, ultimately it all fuses and there are no distinctions. So there is no either/or/both/and/whatever at all. > > I'm sure you have, what I'm saying is, that's the kind of subtlety I'd > like this dialog to simply take for granted and build on. I hope I > don't sound condescending. Sounds to me like you are trying to drive this discussion in a certain direction, etc. That doesn't work in general, IMO, and certainly not with me. Openness to surprise and the unexpected is more like it. It can very well be that what I have to say on a given topic will not make sense to you, or which you will strongly disagree with. To me that is no big deal. I can live with others having different views. > (But I will say that the first sentence of > your response did sound condescending to me. You imagination. There was no sense of condescention on my part in it. So bottom line, what *you had to say* about " I am " , as I put it on the back burner for contemplation, did trigger an insight connecting something I am familiar with to the notion of " I am " as possibly used by others. I never relate much to the " I am " talk of others. So seeing that may be helpful in relating to what those others are saying. Time will tell. One thing you may have skipped over in my previous post was what I said about " I " being inherently dual. That is my view. There is nothing ultimate to " I " in my view. And note that Nisargadatta says much the same, about both the " I " and the " Witness " . He describes them both as being still in duality. I described the " I sense " in my account as a brief flickering sense just prior to dissolution of of distinctions, the last distinction to go being the " I " . We might be too far apart to really discuss this further. I'll have to see what you have to say to these remarks. But do note: I am not interested in those interrogation questions. And I am pretty selfish that way. If it doesn't interest me then I don't go there. I expect you aren't terribly pleased with this reply of mine. But I am telling you straight where I am coming from. So if you don't like it, then it is me that you don't like. I play the way I like to play. I'm not much for adapting. Sorry. That's just me. Bill > I'm not offended, I just > want you to be aware that I feel that way.) > > ~*~ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > Sorry about that last empty post. > > > > > > > > Hoping this one is not only empty, but has enough vacuum in > it, that > > > > it draws you in. I read and reread your post. And I still > don't know > > > > who wrote it. I'm not trying to be cryptic. > > > > > > > > No one can see one's eye looking, right? Is it just an > abstraction, > > > > or is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? > That > > > > there's a something there. I mean, how do you know that it > was you > > > > had all these experiences? Was there one, or two, or more? > And if > > > > more than one, who knows that there was more than one? > > > > > > no knowing Sky, only Being... > > > > > > what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting > > > down what observed as from some remove. > > > > > > consider Einstein's insight in his theory of relativity > > > where he undercuts the notion that the universe can be > > > understood as if viewed from apart. He shows that the > > > observer's existence as part of that universe is reflected > > > in what is observed. What observed cannot be observed as > > > truly apart. > > > > > > = " is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? " > > > no, because deeper than that... it is a looking that is > > > sensing its own " lookingness " ... the separation of itself as > > > object and itself as subject seems virtually to dissolve > > > altogether. > > > > > > it is as if a point of incredible intensity that is absorbed > > > in the sense of its own intensity. There is no space, no > > > here/there, just this intensity that is continually merging > > > back into itself... a fusion that is a meltdown in > > > consciousness of the root sense of separation. > > > > > > consider the center of the sun. The intensity there, the > > > pressure there is said to be so great that atoms cannot > > > maintain their distinctness as entities, and that the matter > > > goes into a " plasma state " where all of the matter is sheer > > > liquid energy... > > > > > > the point of incredible intensity I describe is like that... > > > and any sense of " oneself " , of " space " , of even the very > > > " looking " break down into a primal flux like matter in the > > > center of the sun. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm very familiar with these views, Bill. > > > > For me, they're not as relevant as they seem to be to you. > > Nevertheless, for the sake of intellectual consistency, lets > > interrogate Heisenberg, when he says that we can't find the precise > > location of an electron because the very act of measurement skews > its > > location. " Mr. H., is this, what you just said, relatively true, > or > > is it true in some absolute sense? " > > > > Similarly, when you say, > > > > " no knowing Sky, only Being... " > > > > Do you know this to be true, or are you only Being that that very > > statement itself is somehow relevant? > > > > And when you say, > > > > > > " what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting > > > down what observed as from some remove. " > > > > I'm asking you, precisely, from where are you saying that very > > sentence I just quoted? How do you know that there was no > > Contemplator? Who then, is contemplating that statement now? > > > > Let's just talk about now. Who is reading this? How do you know, > or > > not know? And if you don't know, then, how do you know that you > don't > > know? (I hope I don't sound like Rumsfeltd. But if I do, I have > to > > confess that he actually makes good sense to me, despite his > obvious > > and obnoxious obfuscations.) > > > > Lastly, and I hope this doesn't throw the above off, have you > > considered that things aren't so cut and dried as Being vs > knowing? > > Have you considered that there might be something that is both, or > > neither, or a combination of the two -- and that really, it's not a > > question of either or, but of both and. And that it therefore > becomes > > a question merely of emphasis, and levels of priority? > > > > I'm sure you have, what I'm saying is, that's the kind of subtlety > I'd > > like this dialog to simply take for granted and build on. I hope I > > don't sound condescending. (But I will say that the first > sentence of > > your response did sound condescending to me. I'm not offended, I > just > > want you to be aware that I feel that way.) > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > " to know something is only thought " ... > as is " to not know something " ... > both knowing-thought and not-knowing-thought...is thought... > and all thoughts are only like bubbles in space... > then what about space ?... > the word " space " is of course just another thought... > but just like the word " hot " is not hot at all > ...lets not stick with words... > dont take them to be what they are not... > thought and word are the same bubble..... > and a bubble is of no importance whatsoever.... > give it power and....poof....your lost on the road of fantasygood > and fantasybad....iietsa > I wouldn't say that anything's bad. I'd just say that behind the sense of oppression is that of liberation. To be in the pure present is to let go of whatever. I'd agree that it doesn't matter what you call it. ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > Sorry about that last empty post. > > > > > > > > Hoping this one is not only empty, but has enough vacuum in it, > that > > > > it draws you in. I read and reread your post. And I still > don't know > > > > who wrote it. I'm not trying to be cryptic. > > > > > > > > No one can see one's eye looking, right? Is it just an > abstraction, > > > > or is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? > That > > > > there's a something there. I mean, how do you know that it was > you > > > > had all these experiences? Was there one, or two, or more? > And if > > > > more than one, who knows that there was more than one? > > > > > > no knowing Sky, only Being... > > > > > > what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting > > > down what observed as from some remove. > > > > > > consider Einstein's insight in his theory of relativity > > > where he undercuts the notion that the universe can be > > > understood as if viewed from apart. He shows that the > > > observer's existence as part of that universe is reflected > > > in what is observed. What observed cannot be observed as > > > truly apart. > > > > > > = " is there a sense that one is looking through one's eyes? " > > > no, because deeper than that... it is a looking that is > > > sensing its own " lookingness " ... the separation of itself as > > > object and itself as subject seems virtually to dissolve > > > altogether. > > > > > > it is as if a point of incredible intensity that is absorbed > > > in the sense of its own intensity. There is no space, no > > > here/there, just this intensity that is continually merging > > > back into itself... a fusion that is a meltdown in > > > consciousness of the root sense of separation. > > > > > > consider the center of the sun. The intensity there, the > > > pressure there is said to be so great that atoms cannot > > > maintain their distinctness as entities, and that the matter > > > goes into a " plasma state " where all of the matter is sheer > > > liquid energy... > > > > > > the point of incredible intensity I describe is like that... > > > and any sense of " oneself " , of " space " , of even the very > > > " looking " break down into a primal flux like matter in the > > > center of the sun. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm very familiar with these views, Bill. > > > > For me, they're not as relevant as they seem to be to you. > > Nevertheless, for the sake of intellectual consistency, lets > > interrogate Heisenberg, when he says that we can't find the precise > > location of an electron because the very act of measurement skews > its > > location. " Mr. H., is this, what you just said, relatively true, or > > is it true in some absolute sense? " > > > > Similarly, when you say, > > > > " no knowing Sky, only Being... " > > > > Do you know this to be true, or are you only Being that that very > > statement itself is somehow relevant? > > > > And when you say, > > > > > > " what was written there was not as a Contemplator putting > > > down what observed as from some remove. " > > > > I'm asking you, precisely, from where are you saying that very > > sentence I just quoted? How do you know that there was no > > Contemplator? Who then, is contemplating that statement now? > > Here you are playing interogator again, Sky. > > Asking a question to try to understand what I said is one thing. > I'm fine with that. But to ask questions to try to show me holes > in what I said, I'm not interested. And the latter is clearly > what you are doing here. > > I described actual experience. I said that it would be iffy > putting into words. I am not going to debate with you or anyone > the " validity " of what I described. > > > Let's just talk about now. Who is reading this? > This is the same line of questioning that you pursued with > me before. I went nowhere then and I am not interested in > taking it up again. > > > How do you know, or > > not know? And if you don't know, then, how do you know that you > don't > > know? (I hope I don't sound like Rumsfeltd. But if I do, I have to > > confess that he actually makes good sense to me, despite his obvious > > and obnoxious obfuscations.) > > > > Lastly, and I hope this doesn't throw the above off, have you > > considered that things aren't so cut and dried as Being vs knowing? > > I don't consider *anything* to be cut and dried. > I don't live in a world of words at all. Putting into words > is always a translation as needed to communicate to others. > The description is definitely not the thing. And what I > describe is not debatable. I'm describing experience, end of > story. > > I should add that I also have a strong distaste for intellectual > debate. If your point of view is at odds with mine, OK and so > what. But I am not interested in hashing that kind of thing out. > Sorry, if that is what you like to do. > > > Have you considered that there might be something that is both, or > > neither, or a combination of the two -- and that really, it's not a > > question of either or, but of both and. And that it therefore > becomes > > a question merely of emphasis, and levels of priority? > > As I was attempting to convey, ultimately it all fuses and there > are no distinctions. So there is no either/or/both/and/whatever at > all. > > > > > I'm sure you have, what I'm saying is, that's the kind of subtlety > I'd > > like this dialog to simply take for granted and build on. I hope I > > don't sound condescending. > > Sounds to me like you are trying to drive this discussion in a certain > direction, etc. That doesn't work in general, IMO, and certainly not > with me. Openness to surprise and the unexpected is more like it. > > It can very well be that what I have to say on a given topic will not > make sense to you, or which you will strongly disagree with. To me > that is no big deal. I can live with others having different views. > > > (But I will say that the first sentence of > > your response did sound condescending to me. > You imagination. There was no sense of condescention on > my part in it. > > So bottom line, what *you had to say* about " I am " , as I > put it on the back burner for contemplation, did trigger > an insight connecting something I am familiar with > to the notion of " I am " as possibly used by others. > I never relate much to the " I am " talk of others. So seeing > that may be helpful in relating to what those others are > saying. Time will tell. > > One thing you may have skipped over in my previous post > was what I said about " I " being inherently dual. That is > my view. There is nothing ultimate to " I " in my view. > And note that Nisargadatta says much the same, about both > the " I " and the " Witness " . He describes them both as being > still in duality. I described the " I sense " in my account > as a brief flickering sense just prior to dissolution of > of distinctions, the last distinction to go being the " I " . > > We might be too far apart to really discuss this further. > I'll have to see what you have to say to these remarks. But > do note: I am not interested in those interrogation questions. > And I am pretty selfish that way. If it doesn't interest me > then I don't go there. > > I expect you aren't terribly pleased with this reply of mine. > But I am telling you straight where I am coming from. So if > you don't like it, then it is me that you don't like. I play > the way I like to play. I'm not much for adapting. Sorry. > That's just me. > > Bill > > > > I'm not offended, I just > > want you to be aware that I feel that way.) > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > As far as I'm concerned, there is no " you, " or " me. " There is only a kind of confluence. And that confluence is promoted by a sense of flexibility and openness. When, for whatever " reason, " that lightness and liberation dissipates, so does the confluence. At that point the phenomenon of identity is " established, " and " separation " ensues. Maybe it's time for a comedy break. I don't know what works for you. You seem kind of serious. My experience is that too serious is toxic. I look at all of the conflicts I've witnessed, and it appears as though their egotism is always accompanied by too much weight at one time. Maybe we just need a break, period. The back burner, as you put it. 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.