Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 It is the collective intellect that creates such concepts as: " truth " , " reality " , " now " , " God " , " myself " . It is the same group of conditioned neural reactive-responses that formulates questions about its own creations. This relationship is the tension that forever keeps the gap open in which the dream of separation emerges. This apparent duality is the dream. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > It is the collective intellect that creates such concepts as: " truth " , > " reality " , " now " , " God " , " myself " . > > It is the same group of conditioned neural reactive-responses that > formulates questions about its own creations. > > This relationship is the tension that forever keeps the gap open in > which the dream of separation emerges. > > This apparent duality is the dream. > > > > toombaru > I see the key above in " its own creations " . Once self-identification enters in that is dream. Concepts such as " now " are not in themselves any problem. The whole catastrophe starts with self-identification. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the collective intellect that creates such concepts as: " truth " , > > " reality " , " now " , " God " , " myself " . > > > > It is the same group of conditioned neural reactive-responses that > > formulates questions about its own creations. > > > > This relationship is the tension that forever keeps the gap open in > > which the dream of separation emerges. > > > > This apparent duality is the dream. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > I see the key above in " its own creations " . > Once self-identification enters in that is dream. > > Concepts such as " now " are not in themselves any > problem. The whole catastrophe starts with > self-identification. > > Bill > Do you think that self-identification and conceptualization are the same dynamic? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the collective intellect that creates such concepts as: " truth " , > > > " reality " , " now " , " God " , " myself " . > > > > > > It is the same group of conditioned neural reactive-responses that > > > formulates questions about its own creations. > > > > > > This relationship is the tension that forever keeps the gap open in > > > which the dream of separation emerges. > > > > > > This apparent duality is the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > I see the key above in " its own creations " . > > Once self-identification enters in that is dream. > > > > Concepts such as " now " are not in themselves any > > problem. The whole catastrophe starts with > > self-identification. > > > > Bill > > > > > Do you think that self-identification and conceptualization are the > same dynamic? > > > > > toombaru As I see it, self-identification and *thought* are not the same dynamic. It is self-thought that pertains to self-identification. But thought can be fluid, open, *un-owned*....... But you said conceptualization, not thought... which makes it a deeper question somehow. Shooting from the hip: When there is indentification with thought then there is -- it seems -- a kind of " wheel of thrashing " that results from a cycle of seeing -> identifying -> seeing -> identifying -> ... In other words, when there is thought that " appears " which then is identified as " mine " there is a relentless process of *churn* that is set up. Does thought that is open, fluid, un-owned entail conceptualization? For some reason hesitant to say yes to that. What is your sense/view on that? The term " conceptualization " seems to me to imply a kind of building process, which implies ownership, a " personal investment " . But perhaps that is not what you mean. My sense of the term conceptualization here is something more than just the " forming of concepts " . So in conclusion, if your sense of conceptualization does does entail a sense of ownership then yes, the same dynamic as self-identification, otherwise no. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the collective intellect that creates such concepts as: > " truth " , > > > > " reality " , " now " , " God " , " myself " . > > > > > > > > It is the same group of conditioned neural reactive-responses that > > > > formulates questions about its own creations. > > > > > > > > This relationship is the tension that forever keeps the gap open in > > > > which the dream of separation emerges. > > > > > > > > This apparent duality is the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > I see the key above in " its own creations " . > > > Once self-identification enters in that is dream. > > > > > > Concepts such as " now " are not in themselves any > > > problem. The whole catastrophe starts with > > > self-identification. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Do you think that self-identification and conceptualization are the > > same dynamic? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > As I see it, self-identification and *thought* are not the > same dynamic. It is self-thought that pertains to > self-identification. But thought can be fluid, open, > *un-owned*....... I'm wondering if thought....all thought..... is conceptual and relates to a pseudo-psychological self. > > But you said conceptualization, not thought... which > makes it a deeper question somehow. > > Shooting from the hip: When there is indentification > with thought then there is -- it seems -- a kind of > " wheel of thrashing " that results from a cycle of > seeing -> identifying -> seeing -> identifying -> ... > > In other words, when there is thought that " appears " > which then is identified as " mine " there is a relentless > process of *churn* that is set up. Yes..it appears here that the breeder-reactor and the conceptual thought emerge concurrently.....thrashes around a little (or so it appears to itself)....and then evaporates......... The odd thing.......seems to be that it can evaporate before the physical organism dies....an odd kind of emptiness remains.....but is still confined to the lingo of its conceptual origins. So mostly it goes.....bla.....bla.....bla......or just says nothing.......and stares out into a most mysterious plain. > > Does thought that is open, fluid, un-owned entail > conceptualization? For some reason hesitant to say yes > to that. What is your sense/view on that? I tend to believe that all thought is conceptual and has a self-referential center of origin. Many claim that animals incorporate thought.....and I suppose that the definition of thought can be vague enough to include the mentation of other species......The line of which we speak seems to be actually in the process assigning a name to a perception....and then transferring to that pseudo creation its own reality and the resulting gravitational center around which the imaginary world swirls. > > The term " conceptualization " seems to me to imply a kind > of building process, which implies ownership, a " personal > investment " . But perhaps that is not what you mean. > My sense of the term conceptualization here is something > more than just the " forming of concepts " . > > So in conclusion, if your sense of conceptualization does > does entail a sense of ownership then yes, the same dynamic > as self-identification, otherwise no. > > > Bill > Well............this brain is tired..... It's a slippery bugger eh? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the collective intellect that creates such concepts as: > > " truth " , > > > > > " reality " , " now " , " God " , " myself " . > > > > > > > > > > It is the same group of conditioned neural reactive-responses that > > > > > formulates questions about its own creations. > > > > > > > > > > This relationship is the tension that forever keeps the gap > open in > > > > > which the dream of separation emerges. > > > > > > > > > > This apparent duality is the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see the key above in " its own creations " . > > > > Once self-identification enters in that is dream. > > > > > > > > Concepts such as " now " are not in themselves any > > > > problem. The whole catastrophe starts with > > > > self-identification. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think that self-identification and conceptualization are the > > > same dynamic? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > As I see it, self-identification and *thought* are not the > > same dynamic. It is self-thought that pertains to > > self-identification. But thought can be fluid, open, > > *un-owned*....... I'm wondering if thought....all thought..... is conceptual and relates > to a pseudo-psychological self. > > > > > > > > > But you said conceptualization, not thought... which > > makes it a deeper question somehow. > > > > Shooting from the hip: When there is indentification > > with thought then there is -- it seems -- a kind of > > " wheel of thrashing " that results from a cycle of > > seeing -> identifying -> seeing -> identifying -> ... > > > > In other words, when there is thought that " appears " > > which then is identified as " mine " there is a relentless > > process of *churn* that is set up. > > > Yes..it appears here that the breeder-reactor and the conceptual > thought emerge concurrently.....thrashes around a little (or so it > appears to itself)....and then evaporates......... > > The odd thing.......seems to be that it can evaporate before the > physical organism dies....an odd kind of emptiness remains.....but is > still confined to the lingo of its conceptual origins. > > > > So mostly it goes.....bla.....bla.....bla......or just says > nothing.......and stares out into a most mysterious plain. > > > > > Does thought that is open, fluid, un-owned entail > > conceptualization? For some reason hesitant to say yes > > to that. What is your sense/view on that? > > > I tend to believe that all thought is conceptual and has a > self-referential center of origin. > > Many claim that animals incorporate thought.....and I suppose that the > definition of thought can be vague enough to include the mentation of > other species......The line of which we speak seems to be actually in > the process assigning a name to a perception....and then transferring > to that pseudo creation its own reality and the resulting > gravitational center around which the imaginary world swirls. > > > The term " conceptualization " seems to me to imply a kind > > of building process, which implies ownership, a " personal > > investment " . But perhaps that is not what you mean. > > My sense of the term conceptualization here is something > > more than just the " forming of concepts " . > > > > So in conclusion, if your sense of conceptualization does > > does entail a sense of ownership then yes, the same dynamic > > as self-identification, otherwise no. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Well............this brain is tired..... > > > It's a slippery bugger eh? toombaru > Consider the question: " What numbers divide evenly into 142? " It takes thought to answer that question. But it does not require thought entailing a " self-referential center of origin " in my view. In the end thought is really the same stuff as perception... neurons firing, patterns, cascades of neural activation. It is only the assumption of a center which then implies an inner/outer, which from there implies an entity... it is only that " false order " of the brain that creates " churn " . My view anyhow. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies >an inner/outer, Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does appear that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which it has grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. At least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " jason_de_donno " <jason.dedonno wrote: > > >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > >an inner/outer, > > Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does appear > that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which it has > grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that > address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. At > least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. re the going conversation: none of this stuff is important. it's just more stuff. it's all lies. it's all pretenders. it couldn't care less. what difference if 'you' 'know' what it's about or how it works? nothing changes among all the apparent stuff and feathers. enjoy the show... and know... you ARE the show... and why it plays. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 well said jason.. here too, diana jason_de_donno <jason.dedonno wrote: >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies >an inner/outer, Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does appear that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which it has grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. At least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " jason_de_donno " <jason.dedonno wrote: > > >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > >an inner/outer, > > Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does appear > that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which it has > grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that > address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. At > least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. Not an interruption. This is an open forum. Feel free to comment on whatever. Indeed, the list is most rich when members feel free to express. What you ask is an important question in my view. And not so easy for me to answer. Some history: I had always had a sense of " innerness " , a sense of a " center " within. Then at one point it struck me that my sense of center could be an assumption, not a fact. I suddenly realized that that assumption created a sense of inner/outer, of a " me " inside and of a " world " outside. With that realization I was able to " let go " of that assumption. With that letting to consciousness became as a point that was everywhere at once. There was no longer an " outside " . Everything was included in that expanded sense of spaceless presence. It was as if the " subjective geometry " of experience became radically simpler, indeed as if there were no geometry at all! At this point it continues much the same. For example, at this moment consciousness is dispersed as a sparklng aliveness " everywhere " . There is a brightness that imbues everything and no sense of location anywhere within that expanded brightness. There is also no sense of boundary or " end " . I do experience a sense of " within " at times, but in an odd sort of way, as there is no sense of " without " and no sense of any " point " within the " within " . It is more a heartful sense of pure energy-awareness-love pouring out from a fathomless source " within " and expanding without bound. So I went from a sense of center to no-center to no-within to eventually come to a sense of within again, but now with *no geometry*... just a pure silent expansion with *no center point* and no outside. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " jason_de_donno " > <jason.dedonno@> wrote: > > > > >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > > >an inner/outer, > > > > Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does appear > > that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which it has > > grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that > > address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. At > > least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. > > Not an interruption. This is an open forum. Feel free to comment > on whatever. Indeed, the list is most rich when members feel > free to express. > > What you ask is an important question in my view. And > not so easy for me to answer. > > Some history: > I had always had a sense of " innerness " , a sense of a " center " > within. Then at one point it struck me that my sense of center > could be an assumption, not a fact. I suddenly realized that > that assumption created a sense of inner/outer, of a " me " inside > and of a " world " outside. With that realization I was able to > " let go " of that assumption. With that letting to consciousness > became as a point that was everywhere at once. There was no longer > an " outside " . Everything was included in that expanded sense of > spaceless presence. It was as if the " subjective geometry " of > experience became radically simpler, indeed as if there were no > geometry at all! > > At this point it continues much the same. For example, at this > moment consciousness is dispersed as a sparklng aliveness > " everywhere " . There is a brightness that imbues everything and > no sense of location anywhere within that expanded brightness. > There is also no sense of boundary or " end " . > > I do experience a sense of " within " at times, but in an odd sort > of way, as there is no sense of " without " and no sense of any > " point " within the " within " . It is more a heartful sense of > pure energy-awareness-love pouring out from a fathomless source > " within " and expanding without bound. > > So I went from a sense of center to no-center to no-within > to eventually come to a sense of within again, but now with > *no geometry*... just a pure silent expansion with *no center > point* and no outside. > > > Bill oops...i guess there are answers to questions that haven't been asked. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 > > Consider the question: " What numbers divide evenly into 142? " > It takes thought to answer that question. But it does not > require thought entailing a " self-referential center of origin " > in my view. > > In the end thought is really the same stuff as perception... > neurons firing, patterns, cascades of neural activation. > It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > an inner/outer, which from there implies an entity... > it is only that " false order " of the brain that creates > " churn " . > > My view anyhow. > Bill > Some thoughts: The entire conceptual milieu.....(actually all thought) relates to an assumed center. A deer's perception refers back to itself. In this mind.......they are the same thing. The syntax of language requires the 'other' and emerges only within the assumption of duality. A mountain is a mountain only in relationship to an assumed self. Without a point of reference.........nothing is. Even the apperception of unicity requires a home. Outside of that apperception and its abode is what I believe Nisargadatta was referring to and " beyond the I AM. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " jason_de_donno " > <jason.dedonno@> wrote: > > > > >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > > >an inner/outer, > > > > Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does appear > > that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which it has > > grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that > > address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. At > > least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. > re the going conversation: > > none of this stuff is important. > > it's just more stuff. > > it's all lies. > > it's all pretenders. > > it couldn't care less. > > what difference if 'you' 'know' what it's about or how it works? > > nothing changes among all the apparent stuff and feathers. > > enjoy the show... > > and know... > > you ARE the show... > > and why it plays. > > .b b.b. > " re the going conversation: " -You couldn't resist joining this coversation and show, did you? You old dribbler, keep the tongue dripping..........boy. And yes you ARE the show too you lttl drama queen. Sukhi Ho Bbbrt, Sukhi Ho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " jason_de_donno " > > <jason.dedonno@> wrote: > > > > > > >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > > > >an inner/outer, > > > > > > Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does appear > > > that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which it has > > > grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that > > > address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. At > > > least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. > > > > Not an interruption. This is an open forum. Feel free to comment > > on whatever. Indeed, the list is most rich when members feel > > free to express. > > > > What you ask is an important question in my view. And > > not so easy for me to answer. > > > > Some history: > > I had always had a sense of " innerness " , a sense of a " center " > > within. Then at one point it struck me that my sense of center > > could be an assumption, not a fact. I suddenly realized that > > that assumption created a sense of inner/outer, of a " me " inside > > and of a " world " outside. With that realization I was able to > > " let go " of that assumption. With that letting to consciousness > > became as a point that was everywhere at once. There was no longer > > an " outside " . Everything was included in that expanded sense of > > spaceless presence. It was as if the " subjective geometry " of > > experience became radically simpler, indeed as if there were no > > geometry at all! > > > > At this point it continues much the same. For example, at this > > moment consciousness is dispersed as a sparklng aliveness > > " everywhere " . There is a brightness that imbues everything and > > no sense of location anywhere within that expanded brightness. > > There is also no sense of boundary or " end " . > > > > I do experience a sense of " within " at times, but in an odd sort > > of way, as there is no sense of " without " and no sense of any > > " point " within the " within " . It is more a heartful sense of > > pure energy-awareness-love pouring out from a fathomless source > > " within " and expanding without bound. > > > > So I went from a sense of center to no-center to no-within > > to eventually come to a sense of within again, but now with > > *no geometry*... just a pure silent expansion with *no center > > point* and no outside. > > > > > > Bill oops...i guess there are answers to questions that haven't been asked. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > What you say? Whooaaaa....... Dear oh dear. Thanks for that ......Bbbrt. Great stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " jason_de_donno " > > > <jason.dedonno@> wrote: > > > > > > > > >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > > > > >an inner/outer, > > > > > > > > Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does > appear > > > > that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which > it has > > > > grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that > > > > address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. > At > > > > least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. > > > > > > Not an interruption. This is an open forum. Feel free to comment > > > on whatever. Indeed, the list is most rich when members feel > > > free to express. > > > > > > What you ask is an important question in my view. And > > > not so easy for me to answer. > > > > > > Some history: > > > I had always had a sense of " innerness " , a sense of a " center " > > > within. Then at one point it struck me that my sense of center > > > could be an assumption, not a fact. I suddenly realized that > > > that assumption created a sense of inner/outer, of a " me " inside > > > and of a " world " outside. With that realization I was able to > > > " let go " of that assumption. With that letting to consciousness > > > became as a point that was everywhere at once. There was no longer > > > an " outside " . Everything was included in that expanded sense of > > > spaceless presence. It was as if the " subjective geometry " of > > > experience became radically simpler, indeed as if there were no > > > geometry at all! > > > > > > At this point it continues much the same. For example, at this > > > moment consciousness is dispersed as a sparklng aliveness > > > " everywhere " . There is a brightness that imbues everything and > > > no sense of location anywhere within that expanded brightness. > > > There is also no sense of boundary or " end " . > > > > > > I do experience a sense of " within " at times, but in an odd sort > > > of way, as there is no sense of " without " and no sense of any > > > " point " within the " within " . It is more a heartful sense of > > > pure energy-awareness-love pouring out from a fathomless source > > > " within " and expanding without bound. > > > > > > So I went from a sense of center to no-center to no-within > > > to eventually come to a sense of within again, but now with > > > *no geometry*... just a pure silent expansion with *no center > > > point* and no outside. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oops...i guess there are answers to questions that haven't been > asked. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > What you say? Whooaaaa....... > > Dear oh dear. Thanks for that ......Bbbrt. Great stuff. LOL! oops...i guess there are answers to questions that haven't been asked. encore? hahahahahahhaaaaaaaa! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " jason_de_donno " > > <jason.dedonno@> wrote: > > > > > > >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > > > >an inner/outer, > > > > > > Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does > appear > > > that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which it > has > > > grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that > > > address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. At > > > least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > re the going conversation: > > > > none of this stuff is important. > > > > it's just more stuff. > > > > it's all lies. > > > > it's all pretenders. > > > > it couldn't care less. > > > > what difference if 'you' 'know' what it's about or how it works? > > > > nothing changes among all the apparent stuff and feathers. > > > > enjoy the show... > > > > and know... > > > > you ARE the show... > > > > and why it plays. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > " re the going conversation: " > > -You couldn't resist joining this coversation and show, did you? You > old dribbler, keep the tongue dripping..........boy. > > And yes you ARE the show too you lttl drama queen. > > Sukhi Ho Bbbrt, Sukhi Ho. ;-)) and you can't resist me can you sweetie? there's a nice girl melvin! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 > So I went from a sense of center to no-center to no-within > to eventually come to a sense of within again, but now with > *no geometry*... just a pure silent expansion with *no center > point* and no outside. > > > Bill > I think I follow that...thanks :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > Consider the question: " What numbers divide evenly into 142? " > > It takes thought to answer that question. But it does not > > require thought entailing a " self-referential center of origin " > > in my view. > > > > In the end thought is really the same stuff as perception... > > neurons firing, patterns, cascades of neural activation. > > It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > > an inner/outer, which from there implies an entity... > > it is only that " false order " of the brain that creates > > " churn " . > > > > My view anyhow. > > Bill > > > > > Some thoughts: > > The entire conceptual milieu.....(actually all thought) relates to an > assumed center. > > A deer's perception refers back to itself. > > In this mind.......they are the same thing. > > The syntax of language requires the 'other' and emerges only within > the assumption of duality. > > A mountain is a mountain only in relationship to an assumed self. > > Without a point of reference.........nothing is. > > Even the apperception of unicity requires a home. > > Outside of that apperception and its abode is what I believe > Nisargadatta was referring to and " beyond the I AM. > > > toombaru > " butter " is a concept... and so if you ask me to " pass the butter " and I do... then evidently I understood the concept of butter. Are you saying then that by the very fact that I passed you the butter that there must have been a " referring back to myself " in that process? The " jnani " such as Nisargadatta refers to performs/functions in ordinary, routine daily activity just like anyone else. The difference is not in the behavior as such, but in the *identification* with whatever behavior. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 > > " butter " is a concept... > and so if you ask me to " pass the butter " > and I do... then evidently I understood the > concept of butter. Are you saying then that > by the very fact that I passed you the butter > that there must have been a " referring back > to myself " in that process? I am. The entire 'world' of concepts refers back to the imaginary self..........is in fact not other then the self. Me.....you.....your asking...my responding... ..butter......the concept 'pass'....all arise within the phantom of self. That is the conceptual overlay that arises concurrently with the self and is mistaken for reality. It is a shimmering dream....superimposed upon the natural world of the sage. Everything that a self experiences is not other than itself....It is a closed loop. The understanding of that.........is enlightenment. > > The " jnani " such as Nisargadatta refers to > performs/functions in ordinary, routine daily > activity just like anyone else. The difference > is not in the behavior as such, but in the > *identification* with whatever behavior. > > Bill > Indeed....the self has atrophied.....and the natural world shines through. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > " butter " is a concept... > > and so if you ask me to " pass the butter " > > and I do... then evidently I understood the > > concept of butter. Are you saying then that > > by the very fact that I passed you the butter > > that there must have been a " referring back > > to myself " in that process? > > > > I am. > > The entire 'world' of concepts refers back to the imaginary > self..........is in fact not other then the self. > > Me.....you.....your asking...my responding... ..butter......the > concept 'pass'....all arise within the phantom of self. > > That is the conceptual overlay that arises concurrently with the self > and is mistaken for reality. > > It is a shimmering dream....superimposed upon the natural world of the > sage. > > Everything that a self experiences is not other than itself....It is a > closed loop. > > The understanding of that.........is enlightenment. nice! > > The " jnani " such as Nisargadatta refers to > > performs/functions in ordinary, routine daily > > activity just like anyone else. The difference > > is not in the behavior as such, but in the > > *identification* with whatever behavior. > > > > Bill > > > > > > Indeed....the self has atrophied.....and the natural world shines through. > > > > > > toombaru nice! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " jason_de_donno " > > > > <jason.dedonno@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > > > > > >an inner/outer, > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does > > appear > > > > > that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which > > it has > > > > > grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that > > > > > address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. > > At > > > > > least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. > > > > > > > > Not an interruption. This is an open forum. Feel free to comment > > > > on whatever. Indeed, the list is most rich when members feel > > > > free to express. > > > > > > > > What you ask is an important question in my view. And > > > > not so easy for me to answer. > > > > > > > > Some history: > > > > I had always had a sense of " innerness " , a sense of a " center " > > > > within. Then at one point it struck me that my sense of center > > > > could be an assumption, not a fact. I suddenly realized that > > > > that assumption created a sense of inner/outer, of a " me " inside > > > > and of a " world " outside. With that realization I was able to > > > > " let go " of that assumption. With that letting to consciousness > > > > became as a point that was everywhere at once. There was no longer > > > > an " outside " . Everything was included in that expanded sense of > > > > spaceless presence. It was as if the " subjective geometry " of > > > > experience became radically simpler, indeed as if there were no > > > > geometry at all! > > > > > > > > At this point it continues much the same. For example, at this > > > > moment consciousness is dispersed as a sparklng aliveness > > > > " everywhere " . There is a brightness that imbues everything and > > > > no sense of location anywhere within that expanded brightness. > > > > There is also no sense of boundary or " end " . > > > > > > > > I do experience a sense of " within " at times, but in an odd sort > > > > of way, as there is no sense of " without " and no sense of any > > > > " point " within the " within " . It is more a heartful sense of > > > > pure energy-awareness-love pouring out from a fathomless source > > > > " within " and expanding without bound. > > > > > > > > So I went from a sense of center to no-center to no-within > > > > to eventually come to a sense of within again, but now with > > > > *no geometry*... just a pure silent expansion with *no center > > > > point* and no outside. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oops...i guess there are answers to questions that haven't been > > asked. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > What you say? Whooaaaa....... > > > > Dear oh dear. Thanks for that ......Bbbrt. Great stuff. > > > > LOL! > > oops...i guess there are answers to questions that haven't been asked. > > encore? > > hahahahahahhaaaaaaaa! > > .b b.b. > Its hard to believe. Did you say encore? Whoaaaaaaaa........ Keep going Bbbrt, copy and paste, copy and paste, dribble, dribble, dribble. Be Happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " jason_de_donno " > > > <jason.dedonno@> wrote: > > > > > > > > >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > > > > >an inner/outer, > > > > > > > > Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It does > > appear > > > > that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which it > > has > > > > grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at that > > > > address, and this address and so on. Each address is a center. At > > > > least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > re the going conversation: > > > > > > none of this stuff is important. > > > > > > it's just more stuff. > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > it's all pretenders. > > > > > > it couldn't care less. > > > > > > what difference if 'you' 'know' what it's about or how it works? > > > > > > nothing changes among all the apparent stuff and feathers. > > > > > > enjoy the show... > > > > > > and know... > > > > > > you ARE the show... > > > > > > and why it plays. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > " re the going conversation: " > > > > -You couldn't resist joining this coversation and show, did you? You > > old dribbler, keep the tongue dripping..........boy. > > > > And yes you ARE the show too you lttl drama queen. > > > > Sukhi Ho Bbbrt, Sukhi Ho. > > > > > > ;-)) > > and you can't resist me can you sweetie? > > there's a nice girl melvin! > > .b b.b. Resist you? Better still, you're the best 'thing' that ever happened to me, lttl boy. Whoooaaaaaaaaaaaaa....................... Be Happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " jason_de_donno " > > > > <jason.dedonno@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >It is only the assumption of a center which then implies > > > > > >an inner/outer, > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for interupting, but I wanted to ask about this. It > does > > > appear > > > > > that consciousness has a centre, roughly speaking, from which > it > > > has > > > > > grown. There may not be an " I " but there is an activity at > that > > > > > address, and this address and so on. Each address is a > center. At > > > > > least so it seems to me in my non-realised state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > re the going conversation: > > > > > > > > none of this stuff is important. > > > > > > > > it's just more stuff. > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > it's all pretenders. > > > > > > > > it couldn't care less. > > > > > > > > what difference if 'you' 'know' what it's about or how it works? > > > > > > > > nothing changes among all the apparent stuff and feathers. > > > > > > > > enjoy the show... > > > > > > > > and know... > > > > > > > > you ARE the show... > > > > > > > > and why it plays. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > " re the going conversation: " > > > > > > -You couldn't resist joining this coversation and show, did you? > You > > > old dribbler, keep the tongue dripping..........boy. > > > > > > And yes you ARE the show too you lttl drama queen. > > > > > > Sukhi Ho Bbbrt, Sukhi Ho. > > > > > > > > > > > > ;-)) > > > > and you can't resist me can you sweetie? > > > > there's a nice girl melvin! > > > > .b b.b. > > > Resist you? Better still, you're the best 'thing' that ever happened > to me, lttl boy. > > Whoooaaaaaaaaaaaaa....................... > > Be Happy. :-)) ..b b.b. 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.