Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 The following is an excerpt from Nisargadatta, offered by Era recently. (I have not verified the accuracy of the quotes.) Nisargadatta: 1. I am not this person, this body-mind, or any thing. As I can't be what I perceive, I am not this body-mind or any thing that I am conscious of. As there must be something unchanging to register discontinuity, I am not this body-mind, which is neither continuous nor permanent. As the person is a changing stream of mental objects that I as the subject take to be my body-mind, I cannot be a person. I am, but I can't be this or that. As it is my presence, which is always here and now, that gives the quality of actual to any event, I must be beyond time and space. I was never born, nor will ever die. ////// This piece defines 'person' as 'a changing stream of mental objects'. This is similar to Gurdjieff's system of the person as a multiplicity of I's. How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based upon the *belief* that they are not real? Noel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 " How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based upon the *belief* that they are not real? " Hi Noel, your question belongs to the changing stream of mental objects, if I was a nondualist, according to your suggestion, I would simply ignore it. Lu The following is an excerpt from Nisargadatta, offered by Era recently. (I have not verified the accuracy of the quotes.) Nisargadatta: 1. I am not this person, this body-mind, or any thing. As I can't be what I perceive, I am not this body-mind or any thing that I am conscious of. As there must be something unchanging to register discontinuity, I am not this body-mind, which is neither continuous nor permanent. As the person is a changing stream of mental objects that I as the subject take to be my body-mind, I cannot be a person. I am, but I can't be this or that. As it is my presence, which is always here and now, that gives the quality of actual to any event, I must be beyond time and space. I was never born, nor will ever die. ////// This piece defines 'person' as 'a changing stream of mental objects'. This is similar to Gurdjieff's system of the person as a multiplicity of I's. How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based upon the *belief* that they are not real? Noel Stay in the know. Pulse on the new .com. Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > The following is an excerpt from Nisargadatta, offered > by Era recently. (I have not verified the accuracy of > the quotes.) > > Nisargadatta: > > 1. I am not this person, this body-mind, or any thing. > > As I can't be what I perceive, I am not this body-mind > or any thing that I am conscious of. As there must be > something unchanging to register discontinuity, I am > not this body-mind, which is neither continuous nor > permanent. > > As the person is a changing stream of mental objects > that I as the subject take to be my body-mind, I > cannot be a person. I am, but I can't be this or that. > As it is my presence, which is always here and now, > that gives the quality of actual to any event, I must > be beyond time and space. I was never born, nor will > ever die. > > ////// > > This piece defines 'person' as 'a changing stream of > mental objects'. > > This is similar to Gurdjieff's system of the person as > a multiplicity of I's. > > How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of > mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based > upon the *belief* that they are not real? > > Noel > > all beliefs are objects...and so is ignorance in any form... enough to see objects for what they are... and not take them to be what they are not... what you can perceive you cant be as nis said... and beliefs and ignorance you can perceive... .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Hi Noel - Firstly, if someone is a " nondualist " then that means someone else must be a " dualist. " That means to call myself a " nondualist " is a kind of self-contradiction. Secondly, if one is aware without maintaining dualistic ideas, then " the changing stream of mental objects " must not be separated in any ultimate way from whatever it is that is " not the stream of mental objects. " Thirdly, trying to say " I am not of space and time " or " I am not the stream of mental objects " is another kind of self-contradiction because the statement " I am not of space and time " is one of the mental objects you discussed, as is the statement " I am not the stream of mental objects. " Therefore, these kinds of teachings must be provisional and not ultimate. Ultimatacy in the sense of being aware without any assumptions of a dualistic nature must not be derived from processing a teaching, and must not be a matter of holding any teaching as necessary for being aware. The nondivision of any object and subject, and the nondivision of any perception in time from that which is not of time, is not based on verbalizations of a certain type, nor on some kind of knowing that one person has and another person lacks. -- Dan (nothing new below) Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > The following is an excerpt from Nisargadatta, offered > by Era recently. (I have not verified the accuracy of > the quotes.) > > Nisargadatta: > > 1. I am not this person, this body-mind, or any thing. > > As I can't be what I perceive, I am not this body-mind > or any thing that I am conscious of. As there must be > something unchanging to register discontinuity, I am > not this body-mind, which is neither continuous nor > permanent. > > As the person is a changing stream of mental objects > that I as the subject take to be my body-mind, I > cannot be a person. I am, but I can't be this or that. > As it is my presence, which is always here and now, > that gives the quality of actual to any event, I must > be beyond time and space. I was never born, nor will > ever die. > > ////// > > This piece defines 'person' as 'a changing stream of > mental objects'. > > This is similar to Gurdjieff's system of the person as > a multiplicity of I's. > > How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of > mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based > upon the *belief* that they are not real? > > Noel > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 --- Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > " How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of > mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based > upon the *belief* that they are not real? " > > Hi Noel, > > your question belongs to the changing stream of > mental objects, > if I was a nondualist, according to your > suggestion, I would simply > ignore it. > > Lu > > I do not understand what you mean by 'according to your suggestion'. I did not suggest anything I asked a very simple, direct question with sincere interest. Noel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 --- iietsa <iietsa wrote: > Nisargadatta , Noel > <noel_beau wrote: > > > > The following is an excerpt from Nisargadatta, > offered > > by Era recently. (I have not verified the > accuracy of > > the quotes.) > > > > Nisargadatta: > > > > 1. I am not this person, this body-mind, or any > thing. > > > > As I can't be what I perceive, I am not this > body-mind > > or any thing that I am conscious of. As there > must be > > something unchanging to register discontinuity, I > am > > not this body-mind, which is neither continuous > nor > > permanent. > > > > As the person is a changing stream of mental > objects > > that I as the subject take to be my body-mind, I > > cannot be a person. I am, but I can't be this or > that. > > As it is my presence, which is always here and > now, > > that gives the quality of actual to any event, I > must > > be beyond time and space. I was never born, nor > will > > ever die. > > > > ////// > > > > This piece defines 'person' as 'a changing stream > of > > mental objects'. > > > > This is similar to Gurdjieff's system of the > person as > > a multiplicity of I's. > > > > How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of > > mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based > > upon the *belief* that they are not real? > > > > Noel > > > > > > all beliefs are objects...and so is ignorance in any > form... > enough to see objects for what they are... > and not take them to be what they are not... > what you can perceive you cant be as nis said... > and beliefs and ignorance you can perceive... > ... > > > > 'what you can perceive you cant be' is a belief. Noel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Hi Dan, My question is related to a personal inquiry and has several dimensions. You seem to be stating, at least in part, what appears to be the case to me and that is the quoted piece represents only a pointer to the ultimate. One of the aspects of my inquiry is related to what appears to me to be, at best, a misunderstanding amongst participants here in discussing Nisargadatta's teachings. I want to clearly understand how people here think about this to facilitate communication. More below: --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > Hi Noel - > > Firstly, if someone is a " non dualist " then that > means someone else > must be a " dualist. " That means to call myself a > " non dualist " is a > kind of self-contradiction. This really underscores the basis of my inquiry, Dan. Non dualism in my view is merely a construct, like any other. If a contradiction is possible it seems to me that points to something. I do not agree with the first statement, that is, if there is one there 'must' be the other. This strikes me as formatory thinking. As to the second statement if it is seen that non duality is merely one of many constructs it is not a contradiction to say one is non dualist. All one is saying is this is the particular construct I accept as true. Notice I did not say truth. > > Secondly, if one is aware without maintaining > dualistic ideas, then > " the changing stream of mental objects " must not be > separated in any > ultimate way from whatever it is that is " not the > stream of mental > objects. " Are you suggesting that one make no distinction between those mental objects? If there is no distinction how might one made? Not to make a distinction seems to require holding a belief that may be stated in many different ways but seems to boil down to the mental objects going through their minds are not worth any consideration whatsoever. There are at least two aspects here, then, the fact that this would seem to require holding a belief and secondly the question arises for me as to how anyone can fully function in the world if they are even moderately successful in this? I want to be clear, Dan, I do believe people can be successful (depending on what one believes to be success) in reprogramming their minds and even causing their brains to mutate. Not everyone attempting to do it will be able to sit on a pillow all day long and be fed and clothed by followers I believe that is a big dream bubble (as Marc would say) for many. > > Thirdly, trying to say " I am not of space and time " > or " I am not the > stream of mental objects " is another kind of > self-contradiction > because the statement " I am not of space and time " > is one of the > mental objects you discussed, as is the statement " I > am not the stream > of mental objects. " Yes, 'I am not of space and time' appears to be most popular. Interesting, though, it seems such a belief appears necessarily to create duality in the separation from space and time. > > Therefore, these kinds of teachings must be > provisional and not ultimate. I agree completely. > > Ultimatacy in the sense of being aware without any > assumptions of a > dualistic nature must not be derived from processing > a teaching, and > must not be a matter of holding any teaching as > necessary for being aware. I agree completely. > > The nondivision of any object and subject, and the > nondivision of any > perception in time from that which is not of time, > is not based on > verbalizations of a certain type, nor on some kind > of knowing that one > person has and another person lacks. > > -- Dan I am not quite sure I understand the above piece of your comments, Dan. Noel > > (nothing new below) > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel > <noel_beau wrote: > > > > The following is an excerpt from Nisargadatta, > offered > > by Era recently. (I have not verified the > accuracy of > > the quotes.) > > > > Nisargadatta: > > > > 1. I am not this person, this body-mind, or any > thing. > > > > As I can't be what I perceive, I am not this > body-mind > > or any thing that I am conscious of. As there > must be > > something unchanging to register discontinuity, I > am > > not this body-mind, which is neither continuous > nor > > permanent. > > > > As the person is a changing stream of mental > objects > > that I as the subject take to be my body-mind, I > > cannot be a person. I am, but I can't be this or > that. > > As it is my presence, which is always here and > now, > > that gives the quality of actual to any event, I > must > > be beyond time and space. I was never born, nor > will > > ever die. > > > > ////// > > > > This piece defines 'person' as 'a changing stream > of > > mental objects'. > > > > This is similar to Gurdjieff's system of the > person as > > a multiplicity of I's. > > > > How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of > > mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based > > upon the *belief* that they are not real? > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam > protection around > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > The following is an excerpt from Nisargadatta, offered > by Era recently. (I have not verified the accuracy of > the quotes.) > > Nisargadatta: > > 1. I am not this person, this body-mind, or any thing. > > As I can't be what I perceive, I am not this body-mind > or any thing that I am conscious of. As there must be > something unchanging to register discontinuity, I am > not this body-mind, which is neither continuous nor > permanent. > > As the person is a changing stream of mental objects > that I as the subject take to be my body-mind, I > cannot be a person. I am, but I can't be this or that. > As it is my presence, which is always here and now, > that gives the quality of actual to any event, I must > be beyond time and space. I was never born, nor will > ever die. > > ////// > > This piece defines 'person' as 'a changing stream of > mental objects'. > > This is similar to Gurdjieff's system of the person as > a multiplicity of I's. > > How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of > mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based > upon the *belief* that they are not real? > > Noel > Hi Noel, how could ever somebody ignore the " changing stream of mental objects " ....only by the " belief " that they are not real.....? to " belief " this or that....is maybe only due to a nice concept/theorie of the mind..... to know that there is real Self.....behind all this " changing stream..... " .....by some awareness...... let this " changing stream.... " appear/feel as unreal...... to know slowly who/what you are Not......means, this " changing stream of.... " .....bring one closer to real Self......changless, formless and infinite Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: >'what you can perceive you cant be' is a belief. > >Noel Noel, also <<'what you can perceive you cant be' is a belief>> is again another belief. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Hi Noel, My base is the belief that your sincere question isn't real, thus, I ignore it. Lulu --- Lulu Dong <lulu.dong > wrote: > " How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of > mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based > upon the *belief* that they are not real? " Get your email and more, right on the new .com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > > > --- iietsa <iietsa wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Noel > > <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > The following is an excerpt from Nisargadatta, > > offered > > > by Era recently. (I have not verified the > > accuracy of > > > the quotes.) > > > > > > Nisargadatta: > > > > > > 1. I am not this person, this body-mind, or any > > thing. > > > > > > As I can't be what I perceive, I am not this > > body-mind > > > or any thing that I am conscious of. As there > > must be > > > something unchanging to register discontinuity, I > > am > > > not this body-mind, which is neither continuous > > nor > > > permanent. > > > > > > As the person is a changing stream of mental > > objects > > > that I as the subject take to be my body-mind, I > > > cannot be a person. I am, but I can't be this or > > that. > > > As it is my presence, which is always here and > > now, > > > that gives the quality of actual to any event, I > > must > > > be beyond time and space. I was never born, nor > > will > > > ever die. > > > > > > ////// > > > > > > This piece defines 'person' as 'a changing stream > > of > > > mental objects'. > > > > > > This is similar to Gurdjieff's system of the > > person as > > > a multiplicity of I's. > > > > > > How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of > > > mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based > > > upon the *belief* that they are not real? > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > all beliefs are objects...and so is ignorance in any > > form... > > enough to see objects for what they are... > > and not take them to be what they are not... > > what you can perceive you cant be as nis said... > > and beliefs and ignorance you can perceive... > > ... > > > > > > > > > > 'what you can perceive you cant be' is a belief. > > Noel > > from the persons point of view all is seen in blindness... all clouds are blind...and the sky is the seeing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Hi Noel - Thanks for sharing your comments. To me, a nondualist is a name for a person being associated with a position. A position is understood in relation to opposing or differing positions. Thus, any adherence to a position is dualistic. To know the nondual as it is, is not to be known as a nondualist (nor to not be known as a nondualist), nor to know oneself or others as nondualists. To be nondual is actually to be neither dual or nondual, nor is it to be or not to be. If expressed affirmatively, it is contradicted by negation. If expressed negatively, it is contradicted by affirmation. If expressed silently, it is contradicted by verbalization. If verbalized, it is contradicted by silence. So, what is the truth that is never contradicted, has no opposite or opposition, which is neither inside nor outside? It has nothing to do with making a brain change in some desired direction, which again involves priviledging one type of brain-based knowledge over another. This is what I was pointing to - in spite of not being able to point. Just for the fun of it. Maybe these comments helped make the part you didn't understand more clear. If not, I guess it can't be helped. Thanks again for your comments below, Dan (nothing new below) Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > My question is related to a personal inquiry and has > several dimensions. > > You seem to be stating, at least in part, what appears > to be the case to me and that is the quoted piece > represents only a pointer to the ultimate. > > One of the aspects of my inquiry is related to what > appears to me to be, at best, a misunderstanding > amongst participants here in discussing Nisargadatta's > teachings. I want to clearly understand how people > here think about this to facilitate communication. > > More below: > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > > > Hi Noel - > > > > Firstly, if someone is a " non dualist " then that > > means someone else > > must be a " dualist. " That means to call myself a > > " non dualist " is a > > kind of self-contradiction. > > > This really underscores the basis of my inquiry, Dan. > Non dualism in my view is merely a construct, like any > other. If a contradiction is possible it seems to me > that points to something. > > I do not agree with the first statement, that is, if > there is one there 'must' be the other. This strikes > me as formatory thinking. > > As to the second statement if it is seen that non > duality is merely one of many constructs it is not a > contradiction to say one is non dualist. All one is > saying is this is the particular construct I accept as > true. Notice I did not say truth. > > > > > > > Secondly, if one is aware without maintaining > > dualistic ideas, then > > " the changing stream of mental objects " must not be > > separated in any > > ultimate way from whatever it is that is " not the > > stream of mental > > objects. " > > > > > Are you suggesting that one make no distinction > between those mental objects? If there is no > distinction how might one made? > > Not to make a distinction seems to require holding a > belief that may be stated in many different ways but > seems to boil down to the mental objects going through > their minds are not worth any consideration > whatsoever. > > There are at least two aspects here, then, the fact > that this would seem to require holding a belief and > secondly the question arises for me as to how anyone > can fully function in the world if they are even > moderately successful in this? I want to be clear, > Dan, I do believe people can be successful (depending > on what one believes to be success) in reprogramming > their minds and even causing their brains to mutate. > Not everyone attempting to do it will be able to sit > on a pillow all day long and be fed and clothed by > followers I believe that is a big dream bubble (as > Marc would say) for many. > > > > > > > Thirdly, trying to say " I am not of space and time " > > or " I am not the > > stream of mental objects " is another kind of > > self-contradiction > > because the statement " I am not of space and time " > > is one of the > > mental objects you discussed, as is the statement " I > > am not the stream > > of mental objects. " > > > > > Yes, 'I am not of space and time' appears to be most > popular. Interesting, though, it seems such a belief > appears necessarily to create duality in the > separation from space and time. > > > > > > > > Therefore, these kinds of teachings must be > > provisional and not ultimate. > > > > I agree completely. > > > > > > > > Ultimatacy in the sense of being aware without any > > assumptions of a > > dualistic nature must not be derived from processing > > a teaching, and > > must not be a matter of holding any teaching as > > necessary for being aware. > > > > > I agree completely. > > > > > > > > The nondivision of any object and subject, and the > > nondivision of any > > perception in time from that which is not of time, > > is not based on > > verbalizations of a certain type, nor on some kind > > of knowing that one > > person has and another person lacks. > > > > -- Dan > > > I am not quite sure I understand the above piece of > your comments, Dan. > > Noel > > > > > > > (nothing new below) > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel > > <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > The following is an excerpt from Nisargadatta, > > offered > > > by Era recently. (I have not verified the > > accuracy of > > > the quotes.) > > > > > > Nisargadatta: > > > > > > 1. I am not this person, this body-mind, or any > > thing. > > > > > > As I can't be what I perceive, I am not this > > body-mind > > > or any thing that I am conscious of. As there > > must be > > > something unchanging to register discontinuity, I > > am > > > not this body-mind, which is neither continuous > > nor > > > permanent. > > > > > > As the person is a changing stream of mental > > objects > > > that I as the subject take to be my body-mind, I > > > cannot be a person. I am, but I can't be this or > > that. > > > As it is my presence, which is always here and > > now, > > > that gives the quality of actual to any event, I > > must > > > be beyond time and space. I was never born, nor > > will > > > ever die. > > > > > > ////// > > > > > > This piece defines 'person' as 'a changing stream > > of > > > mental objects'. > > > > > > This is similar to Gurdjieff's system of the > > person as > > > a multiplicity of I's. > > > > > > How do nondualists address the 'changing stream of > > > mental objects'? Do they merely ignore them based > > > upon the *belief* that they are not real? > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam > > protection around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.