Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 Bill, I have tried experiencing things, as you do, as behaviors. The first thing that happens is that I feel a looseness or non tangibleness, but after a few minutes of doing this I then feel like a rubber band that has been stretched too far and has snapped back in upon itself. IOW, I can experience a behavior only as a thing observing its behavior while denying itself as a thing. So I have no idea how you do this without caving in on yourself? However... if I take what I consider to be the opposite approach, and manifest myself, my thingness, more and more fully... more and more solidly and expansively and densely; I cease to be an issue in that then there is nothing left to contrast or compare or reflect " me " :-) I am finding this difference between us very interesting and inexplicable:-) Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 --- stuartkfmn <stuartkfmn wrote: > Bill, I have tried experiencing things, as you do, as behaviors. The > first thing that happens is that I feel a looseness or non > tangibleness, but after a few minutes of doing this I then feel like a > rubber band that has been stretched too far and has snapped back in > upon itself. > > IOW, I can experience a behavior only as a thing observing its > behavior while denying itself as a thing. > > So I have no idea how you do this without caving in on yourself? > > However... if I take what I consider to be the opposite approach, and > manifest myself, my thingness, more and more fully... more and more > solidly and expansively and densely; I cease to be an issue in that > then there is nothing left to contrast or compare or reflect " me " :-) yes! > > I am finding this difference between us very interesting and > inexplicable:-) > > Stu > Hi Stu I haven't responded to your last two posts yet as I've not had much time and pulling all of that together seems like it will take some time. Interesting to get this message from you in the interrum. It seems to me that what you inferred from my use of the term " behaviors " may be askew of what I actually meant. I don't consciously witness my experience in terms of behaviors. I simply meant that what you were calling " selves " might more directly be described as simply behaviors (i.e. why attribute a " self " behind whatever behavior). My hunch is that if you were to magically be able to witness my experience as it is, then to you it would seem quite chaotic. I don't view it as such, but really everything is a " swirl " of experiential phenomena. I have noticed the couple of times in my life when drunk on alchohol that everything is a " swirl " . My ordinary experience is a swirl also, but in a somehow steady and " stately " way. The sensations of experience have no particular logic to them. There can be a sense of " flow " , of a " broad stately turning " , or of " energy flows within " etc... all of which does not correspond in any direct way with what ostensibly is going on in the external " world-view " sense. But I have learned that by abiding the " inner flow " that what happens " outside " takes care of itself. Hence I have been able to let go of " trying to cope " with the world... I just let the flow within unfold as it will. And yes I can drive a car this way. When you speak of how you now have learned to " manifest myself, my thingness, more and more fully, " that might actually correspond to what I am describing about myself above. It is hard to be sure from your description, but that seems to correspond to " letting it be " , to " being one's authentic self " etc., all of which do correspond to the " surrender to innerness " that I describe above. Note: while I describe in terms of " flow " , as the harmony becomes deeper there is no sense of flow even. Hard to describe that " state " as it has no particular qualities, which perhaps its one " quality " Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > > > --- stuartkfmn <stuartkfmn wrote: > > > Bill, I have tried experiencing things, as you do, as behaviors. The > > first thing that happens is that I feel a looseness or non > > tangibleness, but after a few minutes of doing this I then feel like a > > rubber band that has been stretched too far and has snapped back in > > upon itself. > > > > IOW, I can experience a behavior only as a thing observing its > > behavior while denying itself as a thing. > > > > So I have no idea how you do this without caving in on yourself? > > > > However... if I take what I consider to be the opposite approach, and > > manifest myself, my thingness, more and more fully... more and more > > solidly and expansively and densely; I cease to be an issue in that > > then there is nothing left to contrast or compare or reflect " me " :-) > yes! > > > > > I am finding this difference between us very interesting and > > inexplicable:-) > > > > Stu > > > > Hi Stu > > I haven't responded to your last two posts yet as I've > not had much time and pulling all of that together seems > like it will take some time. Interesting to get this message > from you in the interrum. > > It seems to me that what you inferred from my use of the > term " behaviors " may be askew of what I actually meant. > I don't consciously witness my experience in terms of > behaviors. I simply meant that what you were calling " selves " > might more directly be described as simply behaviors > (i.e. why attribute a " self " behind whatever behavior). > > My hunch is that if you were to magically be able to > witness my experience as it is, then to you it would seem > quite chaotic. I don't view it as such, but really everything > is a " swirl " of experiential phenomena. I have noticed the > couple of times in my life when drunk on alchohol that > everything is a " swirl " . My ordinary experience is a swirl > also, but in a somehow steady and " stately " way. The sensations > of experience have no particular logic to them. There can > be a sense of " flow " , of a " broad stately turning " , or of > " energy flows within " etc... all of which does not correspond > in any direct way with what ostensibly is going on in the > external " world-view " sense. But I have learned that by > abiding the " inner flow " that what happens " outside " takes > care of itself. Hence I have been able to let go of " trying > to cope " with the world... I just let the flow within > unfold as it will. > > And yes I can drive a car this way. > > When you speak of how you now have learned to " manifest myself, > my thingness, more and more fully, " that might actually > correspond to what I am describing about myself above. It is > hard to be sure from your description, but that seems to > correspond to " letting it be " , to " being one's authentic self " > etc., all of which do correspond to the " surrender to innerness " > that I describe above. > > Note: while I describe in terms of " flow " , as the harmony > becomes deeper there is no sense of flow even. Hard to > describe that " state " as it has no particular qualities, > which perhaps its one " quality " > > Bill I realize that you not able to respond now, but since I am reacting now I will speak now:-) When vaguely understanding what you do I feel fear for your or my body in that if one simply knows or simply does the right thing, that is great on a non dual level, but for a body with an ego, if the ego simply knows or simply flows, ... the body will walk into walls or fall down stairs, because an ego can only believe that it know. In truth the ego has no access to any truths... in my openion. No need to respond now:-) Stu > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 In > truth the ego has no access to any truths... in my openion. Do 'you' detect any self-referential circularity here? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 --- stuartkfmn <stuartkfmn wrote: > pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > > > > > > > --- stuartkfmn <stuartkfmn wrote: > > > > > Bill, I have tried experiencing things, as you do, as behaviors. The > > > first thing that happens is that I feel a looseness or non > > > tangibleness, but after a few minutes of doing this I then feel like a > > > rubber band that has been stretched too far and has snapped back in > > > upon itself. > > > > > > IOW, I can experience a behavior only as a thing observing its > > > behavior while denying itself as a thing. > > > > > > So I have no idea how you do this without caving in on yourself? > > > > > > However... if I take what I consider to be the opposite approach, and > > > manifest myself, my thingness, more and more fully... more and more > > > solidly and expansively and densely; I cease to be an issue in that > > > then there is nothing left to contrast or compare or reflect " me " :-) > > yes! > > > > > > > > I am finding this difference between us very interesting and > > > inexplicable:-) > > > > > > Stu > > > > > > > Hi Stu > > > > I haven't responded to your last two posts yet as I've > > not had much time and pulling all of that together seems > > like it will take some time. Interesting to get this message > > from you in the interrum. > > > > It seems to me that what you inferred from my use of the > > term " behaviors " may be askew of what I actually meant. > > I don't consciously witness my experience in terms of > > behaviors. I simply meant that what you were calling " selves " > > might more directly be described as simply behaviors > > (i.e. why attribute a " self " behind whatever behavior). > > > > My hunch is that if you were to magically be able to > > witness my experience as it is, then to you it would seem > > quite chaotic. I don't view it as such, but really everything > > is a " swirl " of experiential phenomena. I have noticed the > > couple of times in my life when drunk on alchohol that > > everything is a " swirl " . My ordinary experience is a swirl > > also, but in a somehow steady and " stately " way. The sensations > > of experience have no particular logic to them. There can > > be a sense of " flow " , of a " broad stately turning " , or of > > " energy flows within " etc... all of which does not correspond > > in any direct way with what ostensibly is going on in the > > external " world-view " sense. But I have learned that by > > abiding the " inner flow " that what happens " outside " takes > > care of itself. Hence I have been able to let go of " trying > > to cope " with the world... I just let the flow within > > unfold as it will. > > > > And yes I can drive a car this way. > > > > When you speak of how you now have learned to " manifest myself, > > my thingness, more and more fully, " that might actually > > correspond to what I am describing about myself above. It is > > hard to be sure from your description, but that seems to > > correspond to " letting it be " , to " being one's authentic self " > > etc., all of which do correspond to the " surrender to innerness " > > that I describe above. > > > > Note: while I describe in terms of " flow " , as the harmony > > becomes deeper there is no sense of flow even. Hard to > > describe that " state " as it has no particular qualities, > > which perhaps its one " quality " > > > > Bill > > I realize that you not able to respond now, but since I am reacting > now I will speak now:-) I am more available now... > > When vaguely understanding what you do I feel fear for your or my body > in that if one simply knows or simply does the right thing, that is > great on a non dual level, but for a body with an ego, if the ego > simply knows or simply flows, ... the body will walk into walls or > fall down stairs, because an ego can only believe that it know. In > truth the ego has no access to any truths... in my openion. > > No need to respond now:-) > Stu > " the ego " does not exist, in reality. It appears to exist, but such appearance is illusion. " the ego " doesn't do anything. If I suggest that you pick up an object lying nearby just now, it may seem that it is the ego that does that. But it is not. It is just the " mechanism " that is functioning. To understand this, consider that you are in the same room with Nisargadatta and observe him pick up an object. Do you assume there must be " an ego " behind that operation? He has said that everything he does is spontaneous and happens automatically of its own. Yet it might be very difficult for you to believe that, for when you observe him you tend to see his behavior *as if* performed by an ego. The same applies to yourself; you tend to project upon an observation of yourself doing something as being done by an ego. That tendency to project is really all that " the ego " is. It is not that one actually is there, but that one tends to be inferred as being there. Let's go back to the nearby object that I suggested that you pick up.... The grasping of the object with your fingers happens automatically, does it not? The movement of your arm happens automatically also, yes? Once the intent to pick up that object is formed, the rest is a cascade of neuro-biological operations that simply unfolds. I am saying that even the " intent " is a neuro-biological event that simply unfolds. Do you think a gazelle has an ego that keeps it from jumping into trees? Do you think a fly has an ego that tells it to land on the sugar and not in the skillet of hot grease? [When the last time you saw a fly jump into a skillet of hot grease? They are pretty discriminate about what they jump on.] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 --- toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > In > > truth the ego has no access to any truths... in my openion. > > > > > > Do 'you' detect any self-referential circularity here? > > > > toombaru > ) it is a pleasant logical implosion when it is realized that the notion of self-referential is self-referential. It is self-referential all the way down [or is that up?]. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > In > > truth the ego has no access to any truths... in my openion. > > > > > > Do 'you' detect any self-referential circularity here? > > Yes! good point :-) Stu > > toombaru > 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.