Fwd: Inner Purpose

[Guest guest]

[...]

 

 

>

> I've looked for that inner purpose,

> the meaning of life, the

> universe and everything, for years,

> and all I ended up with were stories,

> and new stories, and new stories.

 

 

 

I haven't looked for it for years but I have certainly looked

for it for some time. I too haven't found any inner purpose

that is independent of me. Inner realm doesn't even have

any movement; how can it have any destination or purpose!

 

 

Inner purpose is exactly what I make it to be - its existence

and meaning is not independent of me.

 

 

I have found that there is not somebody else

[such as a " God " or " soul " for example]

sitting inside me which can give me an

inner purpose. I have found that defining

my inner purpose is my responsibility as

I AM the Only One... inside!

 

 

And, yes, in the end, " inner purpose " is

just " story " ! And, I have noticed that as

" human " much of my living is about

'making stories' [thinking]. Only difference

is whether I make those stories

consciously or unconsciously. I have noticed

that the stories that I amke consciously -

tened to be more peaceful, clear and empowering!

 

 

But, far more importantly, I think that

'consciousness' is really evolving in the

universe and I consider it my conscious

responsibility to play my part in this evolution

of conscious by being more and more conscious

myself. And, to me, being conscious includes

thinking and acting consciously.

 

As a side benefit,

I also find it quite peaceful, happy, empowering

way to be. However, that's not the main point.

I would like to do it even if it was not very

peaceful and blissful to me because doing so I

consider my responsibility.

[Guest guest]

[...]

 

 

 

Looking at it from other angle...

 

Yes, my inner has No Movement! Yet, outside is

full of movement, full of changes. What can be

so STILL, so Silent, so unaffected, unchanged

yet appear so full of changes and movement from

outside! Is it like some game... in which, ultimately,

absolutely nothing happens! Like Children build sand

castles from sand only to break them into sand again

when they leave!

 

I aksed if universe too is just a similar game

that Consciousness [which is not different than ME]

plays in which ultimately, nothing changes; yet,

it is played for its own enjoyment!

 

 

And, I noticed that pretty much, every

game which is played by more than one

player is played with " rules " ! Being

aware of these rules and playing with

awareness to these rules make game more

enjoyable overall and as a side

benefit, I also get to experience

Awareness, Clarity, Focus and

Discipline [iOW... Clear Mind] which is

its own Reward!

 

 

I noticed that as

human, there are certain things that I

need and certain state of mind that I

enjoy, I decided to serve those things

and those states of mind and I decided

to serve those who make whom I see

serving those things and those state of

mind!

 

 

Further, I concluded

that as humans [and rocks, amoeba,

plants, animals] consciousness has been

evolving, has been learning, has been

becoming more and more aware of itself,

others and its surrounding. I decided

to 'serve' that movement too... all with

the knowledge that in the end, it is

just a game [that is nothing really

changes, in the end]! Yet, it is a game

that I want to play!!!

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming wrote:

 

>Yes, my inner has No Movement!

 

Yet you are describing inner movements in 4 postings in a row.

 

>I want to be one with Reality, I want

>to want what it wants; I want to do

>what it does! As you say, it serves us;

>once I know I am no different than

>Reality, I want to play my part in

>'serving' its 'serving'!

 

If you knew that you are not different from reality

You would see how silly the idea of " playing my part " really is.

 

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

> <adithya_comming@> wrote:

>

> >Yes, my inner has No Movement!

>

> Yet you are describing inner movements in 4 postings in a row.

>

> >I want to be one with Reality, I want

> >to want what it wants; I want to do

> >what it does! As you say, it serves us;

> >once I know I am no different than

> >Reality, I want to play my part in

> >'serving' its 'serving'!

>

> If you knew that you are not different from reality

> You would see how silly the idea of " playing my part " really is.

>

> Stefan

 

 

I don't understand your comments Stefan.

 

Can you explain it to me like I am a 3 year old?

 

And, can you also explain what reality means to you?

 

My reality is very simple and it includes father, mother

who birthed to me, teachers who taught me, workers who

worked in our fields to grow grains, workers who built

my house, my quilt....

 

What is your definition of Reality???

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming wrote:

 

>>>I want to be one with Reality, I want

>>>to want what it wants; I want to do

>>>what it does! As you say, it serves us;

>>>once I know I am no different than

>>>Reality, I want to play my part in

>>>'serving' its 'serving'!

>>

>>If you knew that you are not different from reality

>>You would see how silly the idea of " playing my part " really is.

>>

>> Stefan

>

>

>I don't understand your comments Stefan.

>

>Can you explain it to me like I am a 3 year old?

>

>and, can you also explain what reality means to you?

>

>My reality is very simple and it includes father, mother

>who birthed to me, teachers who taught me, workers who

>worked in our fields to grow grains, workers who built

>my house, my quilt....

>

>What is your definition of Reality???

 

" Simple reality " means: one. not two.

" Reality " is not only the outside world,

As in your above description.

It includes the one who is experiencing the outside world.

I think a 3 years old will easily understand this.

 

Your complicated effort in

Trying to be " part of reality " ignores

That the one who is " trying " is himself

Already part of reality.

 

You are talking about " Reality "

as if it was something different from " YOU " .

Something that could be reached or taken part of.

This is simply nonsense.

 

I do not think that this is difficult to understand.

 

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

> <adithya_comming@> wrote:

>

> >>>I want to be one with Reality, I want

> >>>to want what it wants; I want to do

> >>>what it does! As you say, it serves us;

> >>>once I know I am no different than

> >>>Reality, I want to play my part in

> >>>'serving' its 'serving'!

> >>

> >>If you knew that you are not different from reality

> >>You would see how silly the idea of " playing my part " really is.

> >>

> >> Stefan

> >

> >

> >I don't understand your comments Stefan.

> >

> >Can you explain it to me like I am a 3 year old?

> >

> >and, can you also explain what reality means to you?

> >

> >My reality is very simple and it includes father, mother

> >who birthed to me, teachers who taught me, workers who

> >worked in our fields to grow grains, workers who built

> >my house, my quilt....

> >

> >What is your definition of Reality???

>

> " Simple reality " means: one. not two.

> " Reality " is not only the outside world,

> As in your above description.

> It includes the one who is experiencing the outside world.

> I think a 3 years old will easily understand this.

>

> Your complicated effort in

> Trying to be " part of reality " ignores

> That the one who is " trying " is himself

> Already part of reality.

>

> You are talking about " Reality "

> as if it was something different from " YOU " .

> Something that could be reached or taken part of.

> This is simply nonsense.

>

> I do not think that this is difficult to understand.

>

> Stefan

 

 

 

and 'it' should be as easily understood that 'Reality', or 'That Which

Is The Case'....or by any other name that very same One-And-Only...is

whatever 'it' is that is now occurring, has gone down, or will come

up...and that what you now do in reaction, and whatever action of ac

that was done to seemingly provoke that reaction to issue from you,

and what all and every 'everyone' and 'everything' is, and was, and

will be, is exactly and only that very same 'somewhat' of which we all

try and speak. foolishly we all make this ridiculous attempt to try

and state the unspeakable. all and all, we are all full of our own and

everyone else's stuff and nonsense. so what. you seem to have taken

personally that which is without any pertinence to any 'self'. and

you know what Stephan? 'it' is impossible to understand. if you really

think you 'understand' the 'Real' by this puffed up idea of 'Reality'

you present, you are more lost than any babe who has found being here

as a 'someone', 'which' and 'who' has persisted in spacetime

equivalence for those 'three years' (as regarded and reckoned by earth

ball inhabitants) that you have made reference to above as some

supposed designate of stupidity factoring for the species, you

denigrate only yourself. such folly is but less than witty tomfoolery.

this little response here, being NOT that which is Real, SHOULD be

easy for you to understand. and may calm your savage and belittling

intentions towards ac regarding statements made beforehand.

 

love and non-understanding forever and always,

 

..b bobji baba

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>and may calm your savage and belittling

>intentions towards ac regarding statements made beforehand.

 

No such intentions here! AC is teaching me by presenting his beliefs

which raise my doubts. I hope it works the other way as well! I think

it does, since he seems to enjoy arguing a lot. Minds spinning the

wheel. AC is a great guy, I just feel that he tends to make simple

things complicated, but this happens easily when trying to be a

teacher. After all, complicated things are for a teacher like dough

for a baker.

 

" I want to be part of reality "

" But I am reality "

 

Beautiful! It has happened!

Whats next? I hope he will hit me hard!

His hits are always loving because he is from India.

 

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

>I think a 3 years old will easily understand this. "

 

I have to comment my above sentence because it could lead to

misunderstandings. AC had previously asked me:

 

>Can you explain it to me like I am a 3 year old?

 

So, more accurately I should have said: IMHO there is no need to

explain it to a 3 year old child, because it still feels or knows that

it itself *is* the reality. The split between " I " and " reality " at

that age might just start to take some vague shape at the most.

 

I am now 52 years old, and I know how it feels to think about reality

as apart from the self. And that feeling was only a feeling... Boy!

What a relief!

 

That much from a simple laymen called

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >and may calm your savage and belittling

> >intentions towards ac regarding statements made beforehand.

>

> No such intentions here! AC is teaching me by presenting his beliefs

> which raise my doubts. I hope it works the other way as well! I think

> it does, since he seems to enjoy arguing a lot. Minds spinning the

> wheel. AC is a great guy, I just feel that he tends to make simple

> things complicated, but this happens easily when trying to be a

> teacher. After all, complicated things are for a teacher like dough

> for a baker.

>

> " I want to be part of reality "

> " But I am reality "

>

> Beautiful! It has happened!

> Whats next? I hope he will hit me hard!

> His hits are always loving because he is from India.

>

> Stefan

 

indeed it is so. all 'hits' are kindly. the most kindly touching of

all. agreements for the sake of agreement, are often times the least

friendly swats of all. these bizarre and unnatural concordances cut

off any further exploration or discovery of the one and only self.

where can we go beyond that deadening point of ending that comes with

total entente cordiale? from the cahootses of the One which agrees to

disagree, there arise all individuations that are the world of men.

and to what purpose but to have collusions of having disparate thought

each to the other to so 'have' a world of communicative love. as

separations in the identity? these do in fact make 'the world go

round'. as you state: beauteous stuff! argument has always for 'me'

been the most fruitful and lovely of expressions. for from this

action/reaction process, i do discover areas of my 'self' and 'other',

and all and nothing at all, that may have been obscured, through many

times years of neglect that comes with unchallenged social adhesion

of, by, and through, excogitation or feeling-tone.

 

..b b.b.