Guest guest Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 .... So in the receiving of the sense impressions, whatever they may be, seeing, hearing, or touching, there is nothing that has to be there for that to occur. There is no entity, no subject. It's after the reaction occurs that I get the feeling of the " me " , and the preferences and all that. That's right. And there is one step more which is that this reactionary process is not the fault of anyone. No one need be guilty about it. The instantaneous arising of comparing and judgement are coming up because the mind can't do anything else? Correct. That is the nature of the mind. Therefore, in trying to suppress it, you may suppress it for a while, then suddenly it comes up with a tremendous gush. How do you explain that one child is born in a wealthy family, another one in a poor family, another one suffers all his life, someone else comes from a middle class family, and then he becomes a beggar or is oppressed and goes to jail? All these crazy things are happening without their volition? It just happens? Yes. So what is the cause of all this? The cause of this is very simple. If you accept that all there is, is Consciousness, then who is suffering this? Who is experiencing other than Consciousness? So it is Consciousness which experiences all the experiences from Zero to ten through various body-mind mechanisms. But because there is identification, the split-mind says " I " am suffering or " I " am enjoying. That's all that is happening. ... Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar Consciousness Speaks (Ramesh S Balsekar) published by Advaita Press PO Box 3479 Redondo Beach CA 90277 USA www.advaita.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville wrote: > > ... So in the receiving of the sense impressions, whatever they may be, seeing, hearing, or touching, there is nothing that has to be there for that to occur. There is no entity, no subject. It's after the reaction occurs that I get the feeling of the " me " , and the preferences and all that. > > That's right. And there is one step more which is that this reactionary process is not the fault of anyone. No one need be guilty about it. > > The instantaneous arising of comparing and judgement are coming up because the mind can't do anything else? > > Correct. That is the nature of the mind. Therefore, in trying to suppress it, you may suppress it for a while, then suddenly it comes up with a tremendous gush. > > How do you explain that one child is born in a wealthy family, another one in a poor family, another one suffers all his life, someone else comes from a middle class family, and then he becomes a beggar or is oppressed and goes to jail? All these crazy things are happening without their volition? It just happens? > > Yes. Grant, are you still in Love? > > So what is the cause of all this? > > The cause of this is very simple. If you accept that all there is, is Consciousness, then who is suffering this? Who is experiencing other than Consciousness? So it is Consciousness which experiences all the experiences from Zero to ten through various body-mind mechanisms. But because there is identification, the split-mind says " I " am suffering or " I " am enjoying. > > That's all that is happening. ... > > Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar > > > > Consciousness Speaks (Ramesh S Balsekar) published by > Advaita Press > PO Box 3479 > Redondo Beach CA 90277 > USA > www.advaita.org > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2007 Report Share Posted May 13, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville wrote: > > ... So in the receiving of the sense impressions, whatever they may be, seeing, hearing, or touching, there is nothing that has to be there for that to occur. There is no entity, no subject. It's after the reaction occurs that I get the feeling of the " me " , and the preferences and all that. > > That's right. And there is one step more which is that this reactionary process is not the fault of anyone. No one need be guilty about it. > > The instantaneous arising of comparing and judgement are coming up because the mind can't do anything else? > > Correct. That is the nature of the mind. Therefore, in trying to suppress it, you may suppress it for a while, then suddenly it comes up with a tremendous gush. > > How do you explain that one child is born in a wealthy family, another one in a poor family, another one suffers all his life, someone else comes from a middle class family, and then he becomes a beggar or is oppressed and goes to jail? All these crazy things are happening without their volition? It just happens? > > Yes. > > So what is the cause of all this? > > The cause of this is very simple. If you accept that all there is, is Consciousness, then who is suffering this? Who is experiencing other than Consciousness? So it is Consciousness which experiences all the experiences from Zero to ten through various body-mind mechanisms. But because there is identification, the split-mind says " I " am suffering or " I " am enjoying. > > That's all that is happening. ... > It is a mistake to say that " Consciousness experiences " . To say as much is to make of consciousness a kind of subject (which experiences). " Experiencing " entails time. In the immediacy of Now there is no time, no duration... and hence no " experiencing " . A subject *has* consciousness. The Now has no need for such a construct. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2007 Report Share Posted May 14, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville@> wrote: > > > > ... So in the receiving of the sense impressions, whatever they may > be, seeing, hearing, or touching, there is nothing that has to be > there for that to occur. There is no entity, no subject. It's after > the reaction occurs that I get the feeling of the " me " , and the > preferences and all that. > > > > That's right. And there is one step more which is that this > reactionary process is not the fault of anyone. No one need be guilty > about it. > > > > The instantaneous arising of comparing and judgement are coming up > because the mind can't do anything else? > > > > Correct. That is the nature of the mind. Therefore, in trying to > suppress it, you may suppress it for a while, then suddenly it comes > up with a tremendous gush. > > > > How do you explain that one child is born in a wealthy family, > another one in a poor family, another one suffers all his life, > someone else comes from a middle class family, and then he becomes a > beggar or is oppressed and goes to jail? All these crazy things are > happening without their volition? It just happens? > > > > Yes. > > > > So what is the cause of all this? > > > > The cause of this is very simple. If you accept that all there is, > is Consciousness, then who is suffering this? Who is experiencing > other than Consciousness? So it is Consciousness which experiences all > the experiences from Zero to ten through various body-mind mechanisms. > But because there is identification, the split-mind says " I " am > suffering or " I " am enjoying. > > > > That's all that is happening. ... > > > > It is a mistake to say that " Consciousness experiences " . > To say as much is to make of consciousness a kind of subject > (which experiences). > >B: " Experiencing " entails time. P: Bill, Billl! You're back! I'm so glad! I promise I'll never, ever chase you away again. I'm as gentle as a toothless shark, I lost my taste for big tuna like you. I only eat seaweed now. Anyway, yes, experience entails time, and some experiences never make it to now. They stay lurking in the dark, like sharks. > >B; In the immediacy of Now there is no time, no duration... > and hence no " experiencing " . P: How long was your now in the making? Impossible to say if this now wasn't slow baked in some dark kitchen. Just because an endless line of invisible waiters keep bringing savory nows as fast as you can eat them, doesn't mean there are no hidden cooks baking that ever present " Now. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2007 Report Share Posted May 14, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville@> wrote: > > > > > > ... So in the receiving of the sense impressions, whatever they may > > be, seeing, hearing, or touching, there is nothing that has to be > > there for that to occur. There is no entity, no subject. It's after > > the reaction occurs that I get the feeling of the " me " , and the > > preferences and all that. > > > > > > That's right. And there is one step more which is that this > > reactionary process is not the fault of anyone. No one need be guilty > > about it. > > > > > > The instantaneous arising of comparing and judgement are coming up > > because the mind can't do anything else? > > > > > > Correct. That is the nature of the mind. Therefore, in trying to > > suppress it, you may suppress it for a while, then suddenly it comes > > up with a tremendous gush. > > > > > > How do you explain that one child is born in a wealthy family, > > another one in a poor family, another one suffers all his life, > > someone else comes from a middle class family, and then he becomes a > > beggar or is oppressed and goes to jail? All these crazy things are > > happening without their volition? It just happens? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > So what is the cause of all this? > > > > > > The cause of this is very simple. If you accept that all there is, > > is Consciousness, then who is suffering this? Who is experiencing > > other than Consciousness? So it is Consciousness which experiences all > > the experiences from Zero to ten through various body-mind mechanisms. > > But because there is identification, the split-mind says " I " am > > suffering or " I " am enjoying. > > > > > > That's all that is happening. ... > > > > > > > It is a mistake to say that " Consciousness experiences " . > > To say as much is to make of consciousness a kind of subject > > (which experiences). > > > >B: " Experiencing " entails time. > > P: Bill, Billl! You're back! I'm so glad! I promise > I'll never, ever chase you away again. I'm as > gentle as a toothless shark, I lost my taste > for big tuna like you. I only eat seaweed now. > > Anyway, yes, experience entails time, and some > experiences never make it to now. They stay > lurking in the dark, like sharks. > > > >B; In the immediacy of Now there is no time, no duration... > > and hence no " experiencing " . > > P: How long was your now in the making? Impossible to > say if this now wasn't slow baked in some dark kitchen. > Just because an endless line of invisible waiters keep > bringing savory nows as fast as you can eat them, > doesn't mean there are no hidden cooks baking that > ever present " Now. " > And who is baking the nows that are being savored by the hidden cooks--does that last word rhyme with books or dukes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2007 Report Share Posted May 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville@> wrote: > > > > > > ... So in the receiving of the sense impressions, whatever they may > > be, seeing, hearing, or touching, there is nothing that has to be > > there for that to occur. There is no entity, no subject. It's after > > the reaction occurs that I get the feeling of the " me " , and the > > preferences and all that. > > > > > > That's right. And there is one step more which is that this > > reactionary process is not the fault of anyone. No one need be guilty > > about it. > > > > > > The instantaneous arising of comparing and judgement are coming up > > because the mind can't do anything else? > > > > > > Correct. That is the nature of the mind. Therefore, in trying to > > suppress it, you may suppress it for a while, then suddenly it comes > > up with a tremendous gush. > > > > > > How do you explain that one child is born in a wealthy family, > > another one in a poor family, another one suffers all his life, > > someone else comes from a middle class family, and then he becomes a > > beggar or is oppressed and goes to jail? All these crazy things are > > happening without their volition? It just happens? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > So what is the cause of all this? > > > > > > The cause of this is very simple. If you accept that all there is, > > is Consciousness, then who is suffering this? Who is experiencing > > other than Consciousness? So it is Consciousness which experiences all > > the experiences from Zero to ten through various body-mind mechanisms. > > But because there is identification, the split-mind says " I " am > > suffering or " I " am enjoying. > > > > > > That's all that is happening. ... > > > > > > > It is a mistake to say that " Consciousness experiences " . > > To say as much is to make of consciousness a kind of subject > > (which experiences). > > > >B: " Experiencing " entails time. > > P: Bill, Billl! You're back! I'm so glad! I promise > I'll never, ever chase you away again. I'm as > gentle as a toothless shark, I lost my taste > for big tuna like you. I only eat seaweed now. Hmmm... don't recall you chasing me away. I just go busy with developing software, which sucked up all my computer-face-time. > Anyway, yes, experience entails time, and some > experiences never make it to now. They stay > lurking in the dark, like sharks. > > > >B; In the immediacy of Now there is no time, no duration... > > and hence no " experiencing " . > > P: How long was your now in the making? Impossible to > say if this now wasn't slow baked in some dark kitchen. > Just because an endless line of invisible waiters keep > bringing savory nows as fast as you can eat them, > doesn't mean there are no hidden cooks baking that > ever present " Now. " Vivid fabulous image. Illustrates how someone might read a comment on " the immediacy of Now " and construct elaborately confused ideas of what was being said. " Now " is a noun term. Use of a noun term does not inherently presuppose that the speaker intends to refer by that term to " something " that exists. But I already know that you know something of the " indeterminancy " that is obliquely hinted at with the term " Now " . So, smarty pants, maybe *you* tell me how to put it into words. Hmmmm... I like the notion " indeterminancy " there... putting it to the test: Def. Now ~ ultimate subjective indeterminancy. " Ultimate " here means there is not even a frame or any kind of context in which said indeterminancy is framed. Does that get rid of the waiters? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2007 Report Share Posted May 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... So in the receiving of the sense impressions, whatever they may > > > be, seeing, hearing, or touching, there is nothing that has to be > > > there for that to occur. There is no entity, no subject. It's after > > > the reaction occurs that I get the feeling of the " me " , and the > > > preferences and all that. > > > > > > > > That's right. And there is one step more which is that this > > > reactionary process is not the fault of anyone. No one need be guilty > > > about it. > > > > > > > > The instantaneous arising of comparing and judgement are coming up > > > because the mind can't do anything else? > > > > > > > > Correct. That is the nature of the mind. Therefore, in trying to > > > suppress it, you may suppress it for a while, then suddenly it comes > > > up with a tremendous gush. > > > > > > > > How do you explain that one child is born in a wealthy family, > > > another one in a poor family, another one suffers all his life, > > > someone else comes from a middle class family, and then he becomes a > > > beggar or is oppressed and goes to jail? All these crazy things are > > > happening without their volition? It just happens? > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > So what is the cause of all this? > > > > > > > > The cause of this is very simple. If you accept that all there is, > > > is Consciousness, then who is suffering this? Who is experiencing > > > other than Consciousness? So it is Consciousness which experiences all > > > the experiences from Zero to ten through various body-mind mechanisms. > > > But because there is identification, the split-mind says " I " am > > > suffering or " I " am enjoying. > > > > > > > > That's all that is happening. ... > > > > > > > > > > It is a mistake to say that " Consciousness experiences " . > > > To say as much is to make of consciousness a kind of subject > > > (which experiences). > > > > > >B: " Experiencing " entails time. > > > > P: Bill, Billl! You're back! I'm so glad! I promise > > I'll never, ever chase you away again. I'm as > > gentle as a toothless shark, I lost my taste > > for big tuna like you. I only eat seaweed now. > Hmmm... don't recall you chasing me away. > I just go busy with developing software, which > sucked up all my computer-face-time. > > > Anyway, yes, experience entails time, and some > > experiences never make it to now. They stay > > lurking in the dark, like sharks. > > > > > >B; In the immediacy of Now there is no time, no duration... > > > and hence no " experiencing " . > > > > P: How long was your now in the making? Impossible to > > say if this now wasn't slow baked in some dark kitchen. > > Just because an endless line of invisible waiters keep > > bringing savory nows as fast as you can eat them, > > doesn't mean there are no hidden cooks baking that > > ever present " Now. " > > Vivid fabulous image. Illustrates how someone might > read a comment on " the immediacy of Now " and construct > elaborately confused ideas of what was being said. > > " Now " is a noun term. Use of a noun term does not > inherently presuppose that the speaker intends to > refer by that term to " something " that exists. > > But I already know that you know something of the > " indeterminancy " that is obliquely hinted at with > the term " Now " . So, smarty pants, maybe *you* tell > me how to put it into words. > > Hmmmm... I like the notion " indeterminancy " there... > putting it to the test: > Def. Now ~ ultimate subjective indeterminancy. > " Ultimate " here means there is not even a frame > or any kind of context in which said indeterminancy > is framed. > > Does that get rid of the waiters? > > Bill > Here we had this beautifully graspable concept of NOW and look what you've gone and done to it! 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.