Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > > > --- stuartkfmn <stuartkfmn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Luz y Sombras > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever the feeling, whatever the 'state' > > > > > > > > > there is " adjustment " going on. Adjustment is > > > > > > > > > the nature of the mechanism. No need to > > > > > > > > > think, " I am adjusting. " Just as well to > > > > > > > > > consider, " I am not part of this. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be easier to just use the very old concepts.... > > > > > > > > you could name " adjustment " .... " karma " ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the term 'karma' tends to have a personal connotation. > > > > > > > I.e. it is generally thought that " someone " *has* the > > > > > > > karma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I prefer " adjustment " because I prefer to think in > > > > > > > terms of a dynamic system. The system is fluctuating, > > > > > > > going through adjustments... no need to suppose an > > > > > > > " anyone " involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok....i see what you mean.... > > > > > > > > > > > > but if " nobody " is involved...... > > > > > > there is also no system which is fluctuating.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > there is " phenomena " ... > > > > > what we call " appearance " > > > > > and there is constant transformation, > > > > > fluctuation, change in " appearance " ... > > > > > > > > > > such fluctuation can be seen as > > > > > " my experience " , but not necessarily. > > > > > > > > > > to *see it as* a dynamic system is an > > > > > alternative. Just a way of seeing. > > > > > To see as a dynamic system is interesting > > > > > at times. But to see it in those terms > > > > > is not (necessarily) to say it *is* > > > > > a system. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is strange to me that others can feel and understand > > > > " change " and fluctuation. I do not understand it at all! > > > > > > > > Everything, every sequence of events is to me individual > > > disconnected > > > > parts that are complete things with no relation to each other... > > > > I have a massive form of dyslexia in which I can only read one > > > letter > > > > at a time, never a whole word all at one glance. And that is how I > > > > experience life. > > > > > > > > I artifically string things together in order to participate in > > > life > > > > events with other people. But I am just faking it. Often I am told > > > > that my statements sound cumbersome or clumsy. > > > > > > > > As I am writing this my heart is pounding and I am hyperventalating > > > > because I am touching something that feels powerful and explosive > > > to > > > > me, something I do not often look at. > > > > > > > > In the physical game of life this is not a pro survival state, > > > because > > > > writing my name or driving my car is imensly complicated to me... > > > but > > > > in a spiritual sense it is an infinity of individual " selves " and > > > > " nows " , which is neither good nor bad. > > > > I am not experiencing life this way, I am Being lives this way. > > > > Nothing flows or changes, all things just are all at once to me. > > > > > > > > I often fear the future just like most other people, but I don't > > > > comprehend how it is also, at some point, the present. > > > > > > > > Thanks for letting me express all of that to each of you as it > > > helped > > > > me see it more fully:-) > > > > > > > > Stuart > > > > > > > > > Namaste Stuart, > > > > > > You have it but don't see it;-) > > > > > > There is a Stuart, and within that/this " Stuart " was an embryo, > > > a newborn, a toddler, a teenager, a young man, etc. and where ever > > > you are in the being-ness and evolution of Stuart, there is still > > > one that has not been 'experienced/lived' so the past and future > > > Stuarts are all inherent in the present 'Stuart'. > > > > > > Does that help? > > > > > > > Thanks for saying it, but I do not understand what you are saying... > > > > I don't experience an evolution of me, only different Stuarts. I > > don't feel that I am a conglomerate of all of my history, > To feel one is a conglomerate of all of one's history is illusion anyway. > So you are a leg up there. That is a tough one for most to get past. > > > just an army > > of selves, > an army of selves or just myriad behaviors? There are two very real things here now. One I call the quanta or substance of the substance... which is located by my asking myself " What is the most real thing? " The second is that point or spot that is as dense as a dwarf star and exists because I believe or agree that it does. You experience " behaviors " which are what? energy? ,no ... you are talking about how something looks or seems, but is not a " thing " , right?? It is a new concept to me... very interesting!!:-)) > > if you experience yourself as just myriad behaviors not > tied together by any " essential being " ... well, that is > the real truth anyway. Here I am typing and the typing > just happens. It is not *my* typing. Just some keys clicking > and coincidentally some letters appearing on a screen. > Oh yes, and just now a sense of some glasses in front of my > face. And a certain taste in my mouth (yuk!)... all of which > are as if not at all connected. That is wonderful, but it is not something you would allow yoursef to do when driving a car in traffic, right? Floating free is a luxury when one lives life in the fast lane:-) This reminds me of the book " Zen in the art of Archery " . > > Are you trying very hard to do something that doesn't need to > be done, namely " pull all the elements of experience together " ? Yes... > They don't need to be pulled together. The so-called " oneness " > I experience is just that I allow all the elements of experience > to float every which way without any regard. No attempt to > hold anything together here! I can call that " oneness " but it > is not that there is any " oneness feeling " involved. It is just > that there is no conflict anywhere because nothing is being > pushed to be something other than it is. You are living in some way other than I am or you would crash and burn doing this. You do not struggle, that is wonderful. I push against the wall so that it will get out of my way and the wall pushes back so that I won't get in its way... > > > > but my brain knows time and liniality and so my brain and I > > disagree a lot:-) > > So there *is* conflict... and it is just that there is > a paradigm of lineality that is believed to be important > somehow. > > So ask yourself, " What lineality got to do with it? " Time and lineality are one of the strongest agreements in existence. Maybe I am talking about how the game must be played and you are not talking about the survival game at all? > > Life is not linear. Look at science. Linear mathematics doesn't > go very far does it? The functioning of the brain is not linear > either. Perhaps read Gutenburg Galaxy by Marshall McLuhan. Good > argument there that our entire preoccupation with lineality is > derived from the advent of the printing press. > > Some things are linear. But precious few. Time and sequential procedures are not what I can see as " few " . > > Living in the Now with a human brain is not one of them! ? Stu > > 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.