Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 How do we explain God? Ok, it's a concept, but is God just another concept for the stateless state? One thing that has puzzled me for many years is wwhy this Maya? How did I come to be this body-mind identification? Why does my " I " appear to be here, now? How can awareness, which is whole, and one, appear to get localised? I may not be, but the body-mind is part of the whole, is it not? Why this particular body-mind? Why are there unconscious aspects of this body-mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > How do we explain God? Ok, it's a concept, but is God just another > concept for the stateless state? > > One thing that has puzzled me for many years is wwhy this Maya? How > did I come to be this body-mind identification? Why does my " I " appear > to be here, now? How can awareness, which is whole, and one, appear to > get localised? > > I may not be, but the body-mind is part of the whole, is it not? Why > this particular body-mind? Why are there unconscious aspects of this > body-mind? > Is there a movement in your awareness as you read this? or as you pause... Are you able to simply observe whatever movement there may be in your awareness? That movement in awareness... where attention goes... the movement of attention... that is in the Now... *what* the attention is on is another matter... but the movement of attention itself is always Now. You can be in Now right now by simply observing the movement. The questions you ask are about ideas... Maya, God... why waste time in distractions with ideas when you can be in Now right now...? When you know what it is to abide in Now without ceasing... when that is just where you live... then those ideas will be clear enough... you will understand that Maya is simply getting distracted by ideas and pulled away from Now... But the understanding comes *after* dissolution into Now, not beforehand. The understanding is not a *means*. And consider, how could one possibly understand *before* dissolution into Now? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > How do we explain God? Ok, it's a concept, but is God just another > concept for the stateless state? maybe God is the path to real Self.... God is love (oneness)....and therefore like a key to realise real Self coming from illusion to reality.... the illusion represented by the dream to be a seperated entity > > One thing that has puzzled me for many years is wwhy this Maya? How > did I come to be this body-mind identification? Why does my " I " appear > to be here, now? How can awareness, which is whole, and one, appear to > get localised? because of the dream to be a seperated entity.... in reality..... " you " (real Self) has never been seperated from anything therefore....you have never been this body-mind-intellect....for real so your " I " which appear ...now....here......is because of mind..... which relate you....always.....with " everything " ....by the power of God..... if you were aware of " God " .....not only as a concept..... " you " would understand that this " my " words come from exactly same source.....than your words are coming from > > I may not be, but the body-mind is part of the whole, is it not? Why > this particular body-mind? Why are there unconscious aspects of this > body-mind? because to get out of it...one day..... out of time and space... of the mind... back home.... here now Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 > Is there a movement in your awareness as you read this? > yes > > > Are you able to simply observe whatever movement there > may be in your awareness? > yes > But the understanding comes *after* dissolution into Now, > not beforehand. The understanding is not a *means*. > > And consider, how could one possibly understand *before* > dissolution into Now? > I realise that understanding will not help me, but there must be some verbal expression of this. All these different people, animals, billions of " I ams " feeling seperate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > How do we explain God? Ok, it's a concept, but is God just another > concept for the stateless state? > > One thing that has puzzled me for many years is wwhy this Maya? How > did I come to be this body-mind identification? Why does my " I " appear > to be here, now? How can awareness, which is whole, and one, appear to > get localised? > > I may not be, but the body-mind is part of the whole, is it not? Why > this particular body-mind? Why are there unconscious aspects of this > body-mind? If you know all as *indivisible now*, these kinds of questions resolve of themselves. You see the trick involved in the apparent fragmentation and division, and it doesn't bother you, doesn't perplex you. Because it clearly is appearance, it's not a hook to grasp, nor a bank in which to invest. The apparent divisions are actually an aspect of the indivisible, because the indivisible isn't static, isn't located somewhere as a thing. The unconscious aspects of the person are in relation to the split-off thinking and feeling process of I-claiming-consciousness, and vice versa. The body-mind indeed is included in and as this totality, so the body-mind isn't intrinsically or necessarily problematic. The way awareness seems to get localized is because there appears to be a concrete, tangible, manifestation. And the knowing of particulars seems to situate a localized observer with a consciousness unto itself. Although very convincing, it's illusory. But then, if the situated observer with consciousness as its own private and located property is illusory, so are all the things and experiences taht have been situated with respect to this observer. Although you often hear in advaita that nothing ever happened, that's actually too one-sided of a statement about this. It's moreso that nothing ever happened which could be located in some kind of absolute, fixed, or finally determined and situated way. If you look into this, the manifestation isn't really located somewhere out there. You are giving it the qualities of space and time, because you are " wired " to do that, and you are wired to do that so particularities appear. The particular is the totality, and the totality is the particular, it is one indivisble action that has no split-off doer or knower involved. Knowing this (which isn't knowing in the sense that knowing is usually discussed, as a knowing by an observer of something apart that is observed and situated), you know in a flash that the manifesting and unmanifesting and nonmanifest are equal, and are equally *now*. If you rely on a split-off thinking process as an attempt to understand, these questions can never be answered satisfactorily. That's because a split-off way of knowing is, in and of itself, not up to the task. So, it must drop. The more burning the questions become, the more clear it is that the split-off way of knowing isn't sufficient. This " burningness " seems to have something to do with the dropping, although not a cause and effect relationship. It's not like you should try to make yourself get more urgent than it is to you, to know this, and as if the more urgent you get the better your results will be ... it's good to relax and take it easy at times, too. Because " I " am the attempt at split-off knowing, it is " I " that drops, and the world associated with and by " I " , including whatever sense of urgency or burning it is maintaining -- all included with and as " I " -- Indeed, this " dropping " is occurring moment to moment. It's not recognized because there is no observer there to recognize it. This is why things are said like, " if one thinks he knows, that one doesn't know, " or " if one speaks of this, that one is not speaking of this. " " What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? But the man that loses the world, gains eternity. " (attributed to Jesus of Nazareth) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno@> > wrote: > > > > How do we explain God? Ok, it's a concept, but is God just another > > concept for the stateless state? > > > > One thing that has puzzled me for many years is wwhy this Maya? How > > did I come to be this body-mind identification? Why does my " I " appear > > to be here, now? How can awareness, which is whole, and one, appear to > > get localised? > > > > I may not be, but the body-mind is part of the whole, is it not? Why > > this particular body-mind? Why are there unconscious aspects of this > > body-mind? > > If you know all as *indivisible now*, these kinds of questions resolve > of themselves. You see the trick involved in the apparent > fragmentation and division, and it doesn't bother you, doesn't perplex > you. Because it clearly is appearance, it's not a hook to grasp, nor > a bank in which to invest. The apparent divisions are actually an > aspect of the indivisible, because the indivisible isn't static, isn't > located somewhere as a thing. > > The unconscious aspects of the person are in relation to the split-off > thinking and feeling process of I-claiming-consciousness, and vice > versa. The body-mind indeed is included in and as this totality, so > the body-mind isn't intrinsically or necessarily problematic. > > The way awareness seems to get localized is because there appears to > be a concrete, tangible, manifestation. And the knowing of > particulars seems to situate a localized observer with a consciousness > unto itself. Although very convincing, it's illusory. But then, if > the situated observer with consciousness as its own private and > located property is illusory, so are all the things and experiences > taht have been situated with respect to this observer. > > Although you often hear in advaita that nothing ever happened, that's > actually too one-sided of a statement about this. It's moreso that > nothing ever happened which could be located in some kind of absolute, > fixed, or finally determined and situated way. > > If you look into this, the manifestation isn't really located > somewhere out there. You are giving it the qualities of space and > time, because you are " wired " to do that, and you are wired to do that > so particularities appear. > > The particular is the totality, and the totality is the particular, it > is one indivisble action that has no split-off doer or knower involved. > > Knowing this (which isn't knowing in the sense that knowing is usually > discussed, as a knowing by an observer of something apart that is > observed and situated), you know in a flash that the manifesting and > unmanifesting and nonmanifest are equal, and are equally *now*. > > If you rely on a split-off thinking process as an attempt to > understand, these questions can never be answered satisfactorily. > That's because a split-off way of knowing is, in and of itself, not up > to the task. > > So, it must drop. The more burning the questions become, the more > clear it is that the split-off way of knowing isn't sufficient. This > " burningness " seems to have something to do with the dropping, > although not a cause and effect relationship. It's not like you > should try to make yourself get more urgent than it is to you, to know > this, and as if the more urgent you get the better your results will > be ... it's good to relax and take it easy at times, too. > > Because " I " am the attempt at split-off knowing, it is " I " that drops, > and the world associated with and by " I " , including whatever sense of > urgency or burning it is maintaining -- all included with and as " I " -- > > Indeed, this " dropping " is occurring moment to moment. It's not > recognized because there is no observer there to recognize it. This > is why things are said like, " if one thinks he knows, that one doesn't > know, " or " if one speaks of this, that one is not speaking of this. " > > " What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? > But the man that loses the world, gains eternity. " > (attributed to Jesus of Nazareth) > > -- Dan > Very nice Dan. I spent about five years..........in the very edge of 'getting it'. A teacher would say something.....and I would say " That's it! " .....then promptly think......... " OK....what was it? " One night I woke up and realized...beyond any doubt....that which I was searching for existed only as an idea.....and that this supposed " I " thing was nothing other then a clot of memories. All questions evaporated in the clarity of unknowing. How can this be shared? It can't. For one very good reason. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > Is there a movement in your awareness as you read this? > > or as you pause... > > > Are you able to simply observe whatever movement there > may be in your awareness? > > That movement in awareness... where attention goes... > the movement of attention... that is in the Now... > > *what* the attention is on is another matter... > but the movement of attention itself is always Now. > > You can be in Now right now by simply observing the > movement. > > The questions you ask are about ideas... Maya, God... > > why waste time in distractions with ideas when you can > be in Now right now...? > > When you know what it is to abide in Now without ceasing... > when that is just where you live... then those ideas > will be clear enough... you will understand that Maya is > simply getting distracted by ideas and pulled away from > Now... > > But the understanding comes *after* dissolution into Now, > not beforehand. The understanding is not a *means*. > > And consider, how could one possibly understand *before* > dissolution into Now? > > > Bill There is nothing existing apart from now, or outside of now, that can dissolve into now. Metaphors of dissolution can be fun, I agree, I like them myself. That way, there's something we can discuss, some way to point, or something to write a poem about. We enjoy our pointings to what has never been pointed to! This situation can bring tears - of mirth, that is! All our discussions ... Ramblings ... We are funny! Yes, me, too! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno@> > > wrote: > > > > > > How do we explain God? Ok, it's a concept, but is God just another > > > concept for the stateless state? > > > > > > One thing that has puzzled me for many years is wwhy this Maya? How > > > did I come to be this body-mind identification? Why does my " I " > appear > > > to be here, now? How can awareness, which is whole, and one, > appear to > > > get localised? > > > > > > I may not be, but the body-mind is part of the whole, is it not? Why > > > this particular body-mind? Why are there unconscious aspects of this > > > body-mind? > > > > If you know all as *indivisible now*, these kinds of questions resolve > > of themselves. You see the trick involved in the apparent > > fragmentation and division, and it doesn't bother you, doesn't perplex > > you. Because it clearly is appearance, it's not a hook to grasp, nor > > a bank in which to invest. The apparent divisions are actually an > > aspect of the indivisible, because the indivisible isn't static, isn't > > located somewhere as a thing. > > > > The unconscious aspects of the person are in relation to the split-off > > thinking and feeling process of I-claiming-consciousness, and vice > > versa. The body-mind indeed is included in and as this totality, so > > the body-mind isn't intrinsically or necessarily problematic. > > > > The way awareness seems to get localized is because there appears to > > be a concrete, tangible, manifestation. And the knowing of > > particulars seems to situate a localized observer with a consciousness > > unto itself. Although very convincing, it's illusory. But then, if > > the situated observer with consciousness as its own private and > > located property is illusory, so are all the things and experiences > > taht have been situated with respect to this observer. > > > > Although you often hear in advaita that nothing ever happened, that's > > actually too one-sided of a statement about this. It's moreso that > > nothing ever happened which could be located in some kind of absolute, > > fixed, or finally determined and situated way. > > > > If you look into this, the manifestation isn't really located > > somewhere out there. You are giving it the qualities of space and > > time, because you are " wired " to do that, and you are wired to do that > > so particularities appear. > > > > The particular is the totality, and the totality is the particular, it > > is one indivisble action that has no split-off doer or knower involved. > > > > Knowing this (which isn't knowing in the sense that knowing is usually > > discussed, as a knowing by an observer of something apart that is > > observed and situated), you know in a flash that the manifesting and > > unmanifesting and nonmanifest are equal, and are equally *now*. > > > > If you rely on a split-off thinking process as an attempt to > > understand, these questions can never be answered satisfactorily. > > That's because a split-off way of knowing is, in and of itself, not up > > to the task. > > > > So, it must drop. The more burning the questions become, the more > > clear it is that the split-off way of knowing isn't sufficient. This > > " burningness " seems to have something to do with the dropping, > > although not a cause and effect relationship. It's not like you > > should try to make yourself get more urgent than it is to you, to know > > this, and as if the more urgent you get the better your results will > > be ... it's good to relax and take it easy at times, too. > > > > Because " I " am the attempt at split-off knowing, it is " I " that drops, > > and the world associated with and by " I " , including whatever sense of > > urgency or burning it is maintaining -- all included with and as " I " -- > > > > Indeed, this " dropping " is occurring moment to moment. It's not > > recognized because there is no observer there to recognize it. This > > is why things are said like, " if one thinks he knows, that one doesn't > > know, " or " if one speaks of this, that one is not speaking of this. " > > > > " What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? > > But the man that loses the world, gains eternity. " > > (attributed to Jesus of Nazareth) > > > > -- Dan > > > > > Very nice Dan. > > I spent about five years..........in the very edge of 'getting it'. > > A teacher would say something.....and I would say " That's it! " > > ....then promptly think......... " OK....what was it? " > > One night I woke up and realized...beyond any doubt....that which I > was searching for existed only as an idea.....and that this supposed > " I " thing was nothing other then a clot of memories. > > > All questions evaporated in the clarity of unknowing. > > > How can this be shared? > > > It can't. > > > For one very good reason. > > > > toombaru > And that would be???? Sounds very much like a head game, ahead of itself, whispering sweet nothings...? hmmm? Listen carefully Toomey, the wind just whispered your name. Your real name that is... My Love.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Thanks! Why am I I and why are you you? And why is my dog dog? Why did awarness come here, cramped up in this particular body? I'm wondering if there is purpose. Seems strange to think of all these apparent I am consciousnesses everywhere, and I could have been anyone of them, and yet here I am in this particular body. Doesn't bear thinking about...heh! When I think of the things I'm conscious of, I think of sensory input, thought, concepts etc. Like awareness is focused on those things, and not for example, on other systems in the body. The " I am " seems to be in my brain somewhere. It's not, for example, in my big toe. And yet, things are going on in my body. Processes that I'm not conscious of. Unconscious process - millions of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Very nice Dan. > > I spent about five years..........in the very edge of 'getting it'. > > A teacher would say something.....and I would say " That's it! " > > ....then promptly think......... " OK....what was it? " > > One night I woke up and realized...beyond any doubt....that which I > was searching for existed only as an idea.....and that this supposed > " I " thing was nothing other then a clot of memories. > > > All questions evaporated in the clarity of unknowing. > > > How can this be shared? > > > It can't. > > > For one very good reason. > > > > toombaru Yes, well-said. And also for this reason: There is nothing to share. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > Thanks! > > Why am I I and why are you you? > And why is my dog dog? > Why did awarness come here, cramped up in this particular body? I'm > wondering if there is purpose. > > Seems strange to think of all these apparent I am consciousnesses > everywhere, and I could have been anyone of them, and yet here I am in > this particular body. Doesn't bear thinking about...heh! > > When I think of the things I'm conscious of, I think of sensory input, > thought, concepts etc. Like awareness is focused on those things, and > not for example, on other systems in the body. The " I am " seems to be > in my brain somewhere. It's not, for example, in my big toe. And yet, > things are going on in my body. Processes that I'm not conscious of. > Unconscious process - millions of them. Yes, exactly. And those processes wouldn't be happening without " awareness. " (The word isn't the thing.) And is awareness encapsulated within a cell, limited to being within a body, or made the property of a particular mind? If so, then how could the first cell be formed, or the first body, or the first apparent " mind " ? Yet certainly, awareness isn't kept outside of the cell, the body, the mind. You are you because I am I and that is that. And vice versa. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 > And those processes wouldn't be happening without " awareness. " > Interesting. So are you saying there is awareness of those processes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " > <jasondedonno@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > How do we explain God? Ok, it's a concept, but is God just > another > > > > concept for the stateless state? > > > > > > > > One thing that has puzzled me for many years is wwhy this > Maya? How > > > > did I come to be this body-mind identification? Why does my " I " > > appear > > > > to be here, now? How can awareness, which is whole, and one, > > appear to > > > > get localised? > > > > > > > > I may not be, but the body-mind is part of the whole, is it > not? Why > > > > this particular body-mind? Why are there unconscious aspects > of this > > > > body-mind? > > > > > > If you know all as *indivisible now*, these kinds of questions > resolve > > > of themselves. You see the trick involved in the apparent > > > fragmentation and division, and it doesn't bother you, doesn't > perplex > > > you. Because it clearly is appearance, it's not a hook to > grasp, nor > > > a bank in which to invest. The apparent divisions are actually > an > > > aspect of the indivisible, because the indivisible isn't static, > isn't > > > located somewhere as a thing. > > > > > > The unconscious aspects of the person are in relation to the > split-off > > > thinking and feeling process of I-claiming-consciousness, and > vice > > > versa. The body-mind indeed is included in and as this > totality, so > > > the body-mind isn't intrinsically or necessarily problematic. > > > > > > The way awareness seems to get localized is because there > appears to > > > be a concrete, tangible, manifestation. And the knowing of > > > particulars seems to situate a localized observer with a > consciousness > > > unto itself. Although very convincing, it's illusory. But > then, if > > > the situated observer with consciousness as its own private and > > > located property is illusory, so are all the things and > experiences > > > taht have been situated with respect to this observer. > > > > > > Although you often hear in advaita that nothing ever happened, > that's > > > actually too one-sided of a statement about this. It's moreso > that > > > nothing ever happened which could be located in some kind of > absolute, > > > fixed, or finally determined and situated way. > > > > > > If you look into this, the manifestation isn't really located > > > somewhere out there. You are giving it the qualities of space > and > > > time, because you are " wired " to do that, and you are wired to > do that > > > so particularities appear. > > > > > > The particular is the totality, and the totality is the > particular, it > > > is one indivisble action that has no split-off doer or knower > involved. > > > > > > Knowing this (which isn't knowing in the sense that knowing is > usually > > > discussed, as a knowing by an observer of something apart that is > > > observed and situated), you know in a flash that the manifesting > and > > > unmanifesting and nonmanifest are equal, and are equally *now*. > > > > > > If you rely on a split-off thinking process as an attempt to > > > understand, these questions can never be answered > satisfactorily. > > > That's because a split-off way of knowing is, in and of itself, > not up > > > to the task. > > > > > > So, it must drop. The more burning the questions become, the > more > > > clear it is that the split-off way of knowing isn't sufficient. > This > > > " burningness " seems to have something to do with the dropping, > > > although not a cause and effect relationship. It's not like you > > > should try to make yourself get more urgent than it is to you, > to know > > > this, and as if the more urgent you get the better your results > will > > > be ... it's good to relax and take it easy at times, too. > > > > > > Because " I " am the attempt at split-off knowing, it is " I " that > drops, > > > and the world associated with and by " I " , including whatever > sense of > > > urgency or burning it is maintaining -- all included with and > as " I " -- > > > > > > Indeed, this " dropping " is occurring moment to moment. It's not > > > recognized because there is no observer there to recognize it. > This > > > is why things are said like, " if one thinks he knows, that one > doesn't > > > know, " or " if one speaks of this, that one is not speaking of > this. " > > > > > > " What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? > > > But the man that loses the world, gains eternity. " > > > (attributed to Jesus of Nazareth) > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > Very nice Dan. > > > > I spent about five years..........in the very edge of 'getting it'. > > > > A teacher would say something.....and I would say " That's it! " > > > > ....then promptly think......... " OK....what was it? " > > > > One night I woke up and realized...beyond any doubt....that which I > > was searching for existed only as an idea.....and that this > supposed > > " I " thing was nothing other then a clot of memories. > > > > > > All questions evaporated in the clarity of unknowing. > > > > > > How can this be shared? > > > > > > It can't. > > > > > > For one very good reason. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > And that would be???? > > > Sounds very much like a head game, ahead of itself, whispering sweet > nothings...? hmmm? Listen carefully Toomey, the wind just whispered > your name. Your real name that is... > > My Love.. almost Ana.....there IS no toombaru and there is no one to share anything with.....and there is no THING to share........so........there is no you and there is no who and there is no Whoo Whoo Whooo.......however there is the Whooing......just no owls.......gotta LOVE THAT dear! ..........bob p.s. there are also no such things as 'reasons' or even one simple 'reason'.......as the imaginary toombaru once said........aint that a pisser. ;-)))) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > > And those processes wouldn't be happening without " awareness. " > > > > Interesting. So are you saying there is awareness of those processes? Yes. And I'm saying that the awareness of those processes and the processes, aren't two. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 > > Yes. And I'm saying that the awareness of those processes and the > processes, aren't two. > > -- Dan > But...but but but (I bet you knew this was coming)...if there is awareness of those processes, why aren't I aware of them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 know, " or " if one speaks of this, that one is not speaking of this. " > > " What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? > But the man that loses the world, gains eternity. " > (attributed to Jesus of Nazareth) > > -- Dan thanks.... it's endless easy..... for clearness of Self.... but endless difficult....for world-attached...mind... Marc > Ps: eternity....is ....now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Very nice Dan. > > > > I spent about five years..........in the very edge of 'getting it'. > > > > A teacher would say something.....and I would say " That's it! " > > > > ....then promptly think......... " OK....what was it? " > > > > One night I woke up and realized...beyond any doubt....that which I > > was searching for existed only as an idea.....and that this supposed > > " I " thing was nothing other then a clot of memories. > > > > > > All questions evaporated in the clarity of unknowing. > > > > > > How can this be shared? > > > > > > It can't. > > > > > > For one very good reason. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Yes, well-said. > > And also for this reason: > > There is nothing to share. > > -- Dan .....and nobody to share realy with... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " > > <jasondedonno@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How do we explain God? Ok, it's a concept, but is God just > > another > > > > > concept for the stateless state? > > > > > > > > > > One thing that has puzzled me for many years is wwhy this > > Maya? How > > > > > did I come to be this body-mind identification? Why does > my " I " > > > appear > > > > > to be here, now? How can awareness, which is whole, and one, > > > appear to > > > > > get localised? > > > > > > > > > > I may not be, but the body-mind is part of the whole, is it > > not? Why > > > > > this particular body-mind? Why are there unconscious aspects > > of this > > > > > body-mind? > > > > > > > > If you know all as *indivisible now*, these kinds of questions > > resolve > > > > of themselves. You see the trick involved in the apparent > > > > fragmentation and division, and it doesn't bother you, doesn't > > perplex > > > > you. Because it clearly is appearance, it's not a hook to > > grasp, nor > > > > a bank in which to invest. The apparent divisions are actually > > an > > > > aspect of the indivisible, because the indivisible isn't > static, > > isn't > > > > located somewhere as a thing. > > > > > > > > The unconscious aspects of the person are in relation to the > > split-off > > > > thinking and feeling process of I-claiming-consciousness, and > > vice > > > > versa. The body-mind indeed is included in and as this > > totality, so > > > > the body-mind isn't intrinsically or necessarily problematic. > > > > > > > > The way awareness seems to get localized is because there > > appears to > > > > be a concrete, tangible, manifestation. And the knowing of > > > > particulars seems to situate a localized observer with a > > consciousness > > > > unto itself. Although very convincing, it's illusory. But > > then, if > > > > the situated observer with consciousness as its own private and > > > > located property is illusory, so are all the things and > > experiences > > > > taht have been situated with respect to this observer. > > > > > > > > Although you often hear in advaita that nothing ever happened, > > that's > > > > actually too one-sided of a statement about this. It's moreso > > that > > > > nothing ever happened which could be located in some kind of > > absolute, > > > > fixed, or finally determined and situated way. > > > > > > > > If you look into this, the manifestation isn't really located > > > > somewhere out there. You are giving it the qualities of space > > and > > > > time, because you are " wired " to do that, and you are wired to > > do that > > > > so particularities appear. > > > > > > > > The particular is the totality, and the totality is the > > particular, it > > > > is one indivisble action that has no split-off doer or knower > > involved. > > > > > > > > Knowing this (which isn't knowing in the sense that knowing is > > usually > > > > discussed, as a knowing by an observer of something apart that > is > > > > observed and situated), you know in a flash that the > manifesting > > and > > > > unmanifesting and nonmanifest are equal, and are equally *now*. > > > > > > > > If you rely on a split-off thinking process as an attempt to > > > > understand, these questions can never be answered > > satisfactorily. > > > > That's because a split-off way of knowing is, in and of itself, > > not up > > > > to the task. > > > > > > > > So, it must drop. The more burning the questions become, the > > more > > > > clear it is that the split-off way of knowing isn't > sufficient. > > This > > > > " burningness " seems to have something to do with the dropping, > > > > although not a cause and effect relationship. It's not like you > > > > should try to make yourself get more urgent than it is to you, > > to know > > > > this, and as if the more urgent you get the better your results > > will > > > > be ... it's good to relax and take it easy at times, too. > > > > > > > > Because " I " am the attempt at split-off knowing, it is " I " that > > drops, > > > > and the world associated with and by " I " , including whatever > > sense of > > > > urgency or burning it is maintaining -- all included with and > > as " I " -- > > > > > > > > Indeed, this " dropping " is occurring moment to moment. It's not > > > > recognized because there is no observer there to recognize it. > > This > > > > is why things are said like, " if one thinks he knows, that one > > doesn't > > > > know, " or " if one speaks of this, that one is not speaking of > > this. " > > > > > > > > " What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? > > > > But the man that loses the world, gains eternity. " > > > > (attributed to Jesus of Nazareth) > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very nice Dan. > > > > > > I spent about five years..........in the very edge of 'getting > it'. > > > > > > A teacher would say something.....and I would say " That's it! " > > > > > > ....then promptly think......... " OK....what was it? " > > > > > > One night I woke up and realized...beyond any doubt....that which > I > > > was searching for existed only as an idea.....and that this > > supposed > > > " I " thing was nothing other then a clot of memories. > > > > > > > > > All questions evaporated in the clarity of unknowing. > > > > > > > > > How can this be shared? > > > > > > > > > It can't. > > > > > > > > > For one very good reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > And that would be???? > > > > > > Sounds very much like a head game, ahead of itself, whispering > sweet > > nothings...? hmmm? Listen carefully Toomey, the wind just > whispered > > your name. Your real name that is... > > > > My Love.. > > > almost Ana.....there IS no toombaru and there is no one to share > anything with.....and there is no THING to > share........so........there is no you and there is no who and there > is no Whoo Whoo Whooo.......however there is the Whooing......just no > owls.......gotta LOVE THAT dear! > > ..........bob > > p.s. there are also no such things as 'reasons' or even one > simple 'reason'.......as the imaginary toombaru once said........aint > that a pisser. > > ;-)))) LOL > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > Is there a movement in your awareness as you read this? > > > > or as you pause... > > > > > > Are you able to simply observe whatever movement there > > may be in your awareness? > > > > That movement in awareness... where attention goes... > > the movement of attention... that is in the Now... > > > > *what* the attention is on is another matter... > > but the movement of attention itself is always Now. > > > > You can be in Now right now by simply observing the > > movement. > > > > The questions you ask are about ideas... Maya, God... > > > > why waste time in distractions with ideas when you can > > be in Now right now...? > > > > When you know what it is to abide in Now without ceasing... > > when that is just where you live... then those ideas > > will be clear enough... you will understand that Maya is > > simply getting distracted by ideas and pulled away from > > Now... > > > > But the understanding comes *after* dissolution into Now, > > not beforehand. The understanding is not a *means*. > > > > And consider, how could one possibly understand *before* > > dissolution into Now? > > > > > > Bill > > There is nothing existing apart from now, or outside of now, that can > dissolve into now. > > Metaphors of dissolution can be fun, I agree, I like them myself. > > That way, there's something we can discuss, some way to point, or > something to write a poem about. > > We enjoy our pointings to what has never been pointed to! > > This situation can bring tears - of mirth, that is! > > All our discussions ... > > Ramblings ... > > We are funny! > > Yes, me, too! > > -- Dan > Almost a spirit of Wei Wu Wei here... When we realize that we can't nail anything down then it can seem that all that can be said is sheer nonsense... or perhaps delightful ramblings, as you suggest. But the words come in an utterly free way, it is as if that which can't be described, pointed to, referred to is what is generating the words. Well, then, that's much better anyway, isn't it? There is then a movement beyond the first two steps: a) the effort to understand b) the effort to communicate the emptiness of the effort to understand which is simply the dynamic activity of " That Unknown " that does not need to account for " itself " and doesn't even exist as a distinct entity. You might call it the Living of Life Living Itself. So it can be more that just bemused ramblings as I see it. It is whatever that Living of Life brings forth. The possibilities of which are basically boundless. Bill Note: re " that which cannot be referred to generating the words " , I do not see the words generated and the " source " of those words as separate. The entire dynamic is one " malestrom " of being. There is no real separation of noumenon and phenomena as I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > > > > Yes. And I'm saying that the awareness of those processes and the > > processes, aren't two. > > > > -- Dan > > > But...but but but (I bet you knew this was coming)...if there is > awareness of those processes, why aren't I aware of them? You are, but you don't recognize that you are. So, why don't I recognize that I am aware, if I am awareness? The interference is not coming from outside - because there isn't an outside to this awareness. So, how am I interfering with myself? Only by believing that I could exist as a self which could interfere. And self-conscious awareness is the attempt to interfere. In other words, when I attempt to be aware of being aware, so I can know that I am aware (of life processes, or whatever) -- that attempt is interference. And that is all " I " am, and my world of experience is ... attempted interference. And yes, this gets back around to the question you asked earlier, which was something like how can there be imbalance if everything is nonseparate. It takes a good strong look at the bias involved in claiming being for a center of awareness -- not a look from a position apart - but a look that is not separate from the attempt itself as it is tried, now, here. Ironically, the attempted interference isn't a bad thing at all -- it just sounds bad when people discuss what it does. It's actually an excellent way to understand what isn't possible and what can't happen. It is by being clear on what has never happened, that the nature of *what is* reveals itself as is. In other words -- nothing is added on -- it is given up. The giving up is itself the " revelation of this, as is " so to speak. So, my perspective on this isn't to tell someone " just relax, because you already are what you seek. " That just becomes another belief to be held. It makes more sense to me to say " keep trying the impossible, keep trying to know what you can't know, to have what you can't have, to be where you can't be, to hold what can't be held, and create what can't ever be " made. " It is only by attempting the impossible and failing, that truth reveals through the human being (not to the human being), without any belief attached. -- Don Quixote Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Reading your post on the " God Concept " and trying hard so you fail faster = " success " (so to speak), reminds me of something I heard when I worked in a 12 step based substance abuse/alcoholism treatment center. " If you can't transcend it, then wallow in it. " :-) Michael Adamson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 > You are, but you don't recognize that you are. > Right. Thank you! This a very important relevation for me. >It makes more sense to me to say " keep trying the > impossible, keep trying to know what you can't know, to have what you > can't have, to be where you can't be, to hold what can't be held, and > create what can't ever be " made. " Sound's like me. > It is only by attempting the impossible and failing, that truth > reveals through the human being (not to the human being), without any > belief attached. Lik Nisargadatta advised some people to investigate as much as they wanted, only to do it in earnestness. I certainly have that!!! Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > > You are, but you don't recognize that you are. > > > > Right. Thank you! This a very important relevation for me. > > >It makes more sense to me to say " keep trying the > > impossible, keep trying to know what you can't know, to have what you > > can't have, to be where you can't be, to hold what can't be held, and > > create what can't ever be " made. " > > Sound's like me. > > > It is only by attempting the impossible and failing, that truth > > reveals through the human being (not to the human being), without any > > belief attached. > > Lik Nisargadatta advised some people to investigate as much as they > wanted, only to do it in earnestness. I certainly have that!!! > > Thanks. Yes, that's it. Looking deeply, sincerely, the mind has no recourse but to still, to release the known ... There is nothing else. 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.