Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Sky says... " 1/2 and 1/2 " (i.e., 50% and 50%). To me, it's far more accurate to say 100% and 100%. Michael Adamson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > Sky says... " 1/2 and 1/2 " (i.e., 50% and 50%). > > To me, it's far more accurate to say 100% and 100%. > > Michael Adamson > It's a refreshing view! It means that any sense of fine tuning Balance, delicacy, sensitivity, compassion Genuine intimacy and interrelatedness Can be foreclosed and shunted aside No need for creativity No need to fear being " Right or Wrong " No real world To contend with It's all just a dream Solipsism gives us a tremendous sense Of complete autonomy Independence Sovereignty. Yet something Is lost Does anyone know What it is? I'd call it Love .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 If I follow you correctly, 100% and 100% has nothing to do with solipsism the way I understand that word. Notice the word " and " in 100% and 100%. That acknowledges that there is indeed " another " relative to the body mind. In other words, a human being. The beingness of human beings is what's 100% responsible. Not the identity, personality, meaning making mind, etc. Human beings are machines that are capable of seeing that they are machines. And " that " which sees it is a machine is not part of the machinery. When this realization occurs, a whole new way of possibility of being in and relating to the world and others appears, but not as solipsism as in " it's all in my mind, my experience, my view, I am the only one, etc) because that way of seeing is related to a " center " , and " identity " , something at the core of the seeing. It's to see so-called others and the world as oneself, this essential no-thingness expressing itself as modifications of itself. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > If I follow you correctly, 100% and 100% has nothing to do with solipsism the way I understand that word. Notice the word " and " in 100% and 100%. That acknowledges that there is indeed " another " relative to the body mind. In other words, a human being. The beingness of human beings is what's 100% responsible. Not the identity, personality, meaning making mind, etc. Human beings are machines that are capable of seeing that they are machines. And " that " which sees it is a machine is not part of the machinery. When this realization occurs, a whole new way of possibility of being in and relating to the world and others appears, but not as solipsism as in " it's all in my mind, my experience, my view, I am the only one, etc) because that way of seeing is related to a " center " , and " identity " , something at the core of the seeing. It's to see so-called others and the world as oneself, this essential no-thingness expressing itself as modifications of itself. > > Michael > Sounds good on e-paper. So, I-Thou, then, would be my relationship to myself as witness and my relationship to you as witness My witness To your witness? I'll go along with that Sure! Ideally, yes. .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > If I follow you correctly, 100% and 100% has nothing to do with > solipsism the way I understand that word. Notice the word " and " in > 100% and 100%. That acknowledges that there is indeed " another " > relative to the body mind. In other words, a human being. The > beingness of human beings is what's 100% responsible. Not the > identity, personality, meaning making mind, etc. Human beings are > machines that are capable of seeing that they are machines. And " that " > which sees it is a machine is not part of the machinery. When this > realization occurs, a whole new way of possibility of being in and > relating to the world and others appears, but not as solipsism as in > " it's all in my mind, my experience, my view, I am the only one, etc) > because that way of seeing is related to a " center " , and " identity " , > something at the core of the seeing. It's to see so-called others and > the world as oneself, this essential no-thingness expressing itself as > modifications of itself. > > > > Michael > > > > > Sounds good on e-paper. > > So, I-Thou, then, would be > > my relationship to myself as witness > > and my relationship to you as witness > > > My witness > > To your witness? > > > > I'll go along with that > > Sure! > > > Ideally, yes. hmmm. sounds like a posting i origiinally sent to satsang in uk that I posted here. i wonder;-) > > > > > > > > ... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Hi Sky, Thanks for putting what I said in simpler terms! Not sure what you meant by " ideally " however. I look forward to hearing more! Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > If I follow you correctly, 100% and 100% has nothing to do with > > solipsism the way I understand that word. Notice the word " and " in > > 100% and 100%. That acknowledges that there is indeed " another " > > relative to the body mind. In other words, a human being. The > > beingness of human beings is what's 100% responsible. Not the > > identity, personality, meaning making mind, etc. Human beings are > > machines that are capable of seeing that they are machines. > And " that " > > which sees it is a machine is not part of the machinery. When this > > realization occurs, a whole new way of possibility of being in and > > relating to the world and others appears, but not as solipsism as > in > > " it's all in my mind, my experience, my view, I am the only one, > etc) > > because that way of seeing is related to a " center " , > and " identity " , > > something at the core of the seeing. It's to see so-called others > and > > the world as oneself, this essential no-thingness expressing > itself as > > modifications of itself. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > Sounds good on e-paper. > > > > So, I-Thou, then, would be > > > > my relationship to myself as witness > > > > and my relationship to you as witness > > > > > > My witness > > > > To your witness? > > > > > > > > I'll go along with that > > > > Sure! > > > > > > Ideally, yes. > > > > hmmm. sounds like a posting i origiinally sent to satsang in uk > that I posted here. > > i wonder;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > keep us posted .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > Hi Sky, > > Thanks for putting what I said in simpler terms! Not sure what you meant by " ideally " however. I look forward to hearing more! > > Michael > Thank you, as well. By " ideally, " I just mean I like it best that way but that's not always the way it is. Sometimes I feel crowded and I'm too busy thrashing about to really know myself and others as Witness. When I find and invoke the Space, then I can breathe free in I-Thou. Right? .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 Hi Sky, I think I see what you mean and I feel the same way. So it seems that it may be a matter of myself and others " knowingly " being in and as the witness position. The kicker is that who we really really always already are is " doing " that as that's all that can be " done " . However, we lapse into identifying ourselves with our identity, thoughts, etc. (i.e., our machinery). I''ll be away all weekend so may not be able to reply! Best to you! Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > Hi Sky, > > I think I see what you mean and I feel the same way. So it seems that it may be a matter of myself and others " knowingly " being in and as the witness position. The kicker is that who we really really always already are is " doing " that as that's all that can be " done " . However, we lapse into identifying ourselves with our identity, thoughts, etc. (i.e., our machinery). > > I''ll be away all weekend so may not be able to reply! > > Best to you! > Michael > > 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.