Mindfulness of I AM or plain, unflavored witnessing?

[Guest guest]

Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing in our

lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he says " Just

be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a contradiction. " You

can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find that

working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the thought:

Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know this

thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing this

when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be doing

anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes just

thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better , it

seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have equal

weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your back for

a couple of hours and do nothing.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote:

>

> Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing in our

> lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he says " Just

> be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a contradiction. " You

> can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find that

> working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the thought:

> Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know this

> thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

> happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing this

> when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be doing

> anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes just

> thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better , it

> seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have equal

> weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your back for

> a couple of hours and do nothing.

>

 

 

The attempt to do nothing is an attempt to do something.

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote:

>

> Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing in our

> lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he says " Just

> be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a contradiction. " You

> can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find that

> working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the thought:

> Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know this

> thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

> happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing this

> when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be doing

> anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes just

> thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better , it

> seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have equal

> weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your back for

> a couple of hours and do nothing.

>

 

 

 

The self can do nothing simply because it exists only an a memeplex of

memories.

 

There, however, comes......or not......in the search........a window

through which that can be seen (by no one).

 

All suggestions by the sages are methods to get the seeker to glimpse

their own vacuity.

 

(staring into the void......and the void stares back).

 

Once that understanding occurs...the continuity of mechanism begins to

break down .....and its orbit is changed to include an ultimate

collision with the sun.

 

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> >

> > Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing

in our

> > lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he

says " Just

> > be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a

contradiction. " You

> > can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find that

> > working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the

thought:

> > Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know

this

> > thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

> > happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing

this

> > when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be doing

> > anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes

just

> > thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better ,

it

> > seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have

equal

> > weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your

back for

> > a couple of hours and do nothing.

> >

>

>

> The attempt to do nothing is an attempt to do something.

>

>

>

> toombaru

>To me it feels more like a ceasing from all attempting.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing

> in our

> > > lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he

> says " Just

> > > be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a

> contradiction. " You

> > > can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find that

> > > working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the

> thought:

> > > Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know

> this

> > > thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

> > > happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing

> this

> > > when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be doing

> > > anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes

> just

> > > thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better ,

> it

> > > seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have

> equal

> > > weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your

> back for

> > > a couple of hours and do nothing.

> > >

> >

> >

> > The attempt to do nothing is an attempt to do something.

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >To me it feels more like a ceasing from all attempting.

>

 

 

 

I know...........That's one of the tricks.

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote:

>

> Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing in our

> lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he says " Just

> be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a contradiction. " You

> can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find that

> working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the thought:

> Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know this

> thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

> happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing this

> when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be doing

> anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes just

> thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better , it

> seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have equal

> weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your back for

> a couple of hours and do nothing.

>

 

It is your interpretation of the recommendation, " be mindful of the

I Am, " to make that an action, an active behavior. If you make

that interpretation then yes, there is a contradiction.

 

Either a sense of " I Am " is there or it is not. If there is not

then there is no need for any teaching. If there *is* then

being mindful of that is to *simply notice it*, no effort

involved.

 

His point is that if there is a sense of self (small s) then

there are thoughts/feelings such as " I am happy " , " I am sad " ,

etc. An impressionistic image of " who one is " is composed

of myriad such contemplations. All of that is false, as there

is no self in an existential sense. So how to break through

the very strong predilection to consider that there is?

 

One approach is to notice the " root sense " of " I am " in any

such thought/feeling. By being mindful of the root sense of

" I am " behind any " I am X " thought or feeling, one comes to

realize that the " I am " portion is always far more significant

than any X going with that, something like that way any person

is always far more significant than any clothes they may be

wearing.

 

So for example, in terms of your remarks above, if there should

be the thought, " I should just sit still and let all thoughts

have equal weight... " , the practice would be to notice the

sense of " I " behind/underlying that thought, and that while

yes allowing all thoughts to move through in their " parade " ,

continually noticing whatever " sense of I " (=I am) that

underlies whatever may arise.

 

Continuing in such a way the " sense of I " moves from a

a background presumption into conscious awareness. It is at

that point that " I AM " has come into consciousness. For a

time the " I AM " seems like the Reality, as it seems to

persist, to be ever-present. But that is not the end,

as that too eventually fades into something more vast.

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing

> > in our

> > > > lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he

> > says " Just

> > > > be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a

> > contradiction. " You

> > > > can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find that

> > > > working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the

> > thought:

> > > > Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know

> > this

> > > > thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

> > > > happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing

> > this

> > > > when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be doing

> > > > anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes

> > just

> > > > thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better ,

> > it

> > > > seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have

> > equal

> > > > weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your

> > back for

> > > > a couple of hours and do nothing.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The attempt to do nothing is an attempt to do something.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >To me it feels more like a ceasing from all attempting.

> >

>

>

>

> I know...........That's one of the tricks.

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

 

There are no " tricks " .

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> >

> > Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing in

our

> > lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he says " Just

> > be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a

contradiction. " You

> > can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find that

> > working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the thought:

> > Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know this

> > thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

> > happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing this

> > when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be doing

> > anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes just

> > thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better , it

> > seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have equal

> > weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your back for

> > a couple of hours and do nothing.

> >

>

> It is your interpretation of the recommendation, " be mindful of the

> I Am, " to make that an action, an active behavior. If you make

> that interpretation then yes, there is a contradiction.

>

> Either a sense of " I Am " is there or it is not. If there is not

> then there is no need for any teaching. If there *is* then

> being mindful of that is to *simply notice it*, no effort

> involved.

>

> His point is that if there is a sense of self (small s) then

> there are thoughts/feelings such as " I am happy " , " I am sad " ,

> etc. An impressionistic image of " who one is " is composed

> of myriad such contemplations. All of that is false, as there

> is no self in an existential sense. So how to break through

> the very strong predilection to consider that there is?

>

> One approach is to notice the " root sense " of " I am " in any

> such thought/feeling. By being mindful of the root sense of

> " I am " behind any " I am X " thought or feeling, one comes to

> realize that the " I am " portion is always far more significant

> than any X going with that, something like that way any person

> is always far more significant than any clothes they may be

> wearing.

>

> So for example, in terms of your remarks above, if there should

> be the thought, " I should just sit still and let all thoughts

> have equal weight... " , the practice would be to notice the

> sense of " I " behind/underlying that thought, and that while

> yes allowing all thoughts to move through in their " parade " ,

> continually noticing whatever " sense of I " (=I am) that

> underlies whatever may arise.

>

> Continuing in such a way the " sense of I " moves from a

> a background presumption into conscious awareness. It is at

> that point that " I AM " has come into consciousness. For a

> time the " I AM " seems like the Reality, as it seems to

> persist, to be ever-present. But that is not the end,

> as that too eventually fades into something more vast.

>

>

> Bill

>

 

 

Bill,

 

This is grand.

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing

> > > in our

> > > > > lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he

> > > says " Just

> > > > > be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a

> > > contradiction. " You

> > > > > can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find

that

> > > > > working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the

> > > thought:

> > > > > Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know

> > > this

> > > > > thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

> > > > > happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing

> > > this

> > > > > when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be

doing

> > > > > anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes

> > > just

> > > > > thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better ,

> > > it

> > > > > seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have

> > > equal

> > > > > weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your

> > > back for

> > > > > a couple of hours and do nothing.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The attempt to do nothing is an attempt to do something.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > toombaru

> > > >To me it feels more like a ceasing from all attempting.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > I know...........That's one of the tricks.

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

>

> There are no " tricks " .

>

>

> Bill

>

 

 

There are methods evolved to promote the survival of the entity.

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is

nothing

> > > > in our

> > > > > > lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he

> > > > says " Just

> > > > > > be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a

> > > > contradiction. " You

> > > > > > can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find

> that

> > > > > > working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the

> > > > thought:

> > > > > > Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know

> > > > this

> > > > > > thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts

are

> > > > > > happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I

doing

> > > > this

> > > > > > when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be

> doing

> > > > > > anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes

> > > > just

> > > > > > thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts.

Better ,

> > > > it

> > > > > > seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have

> > > > equal

> > > > > > weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your

> > > > back for

> > > > > > a couple of hours and do nothing.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The attempt to do nothing is an attempt to do something.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > toombaru

> > > > >To me it feels more like a ceasing from all attempting.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I know...........That's one of the tricks.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> >

> > There are no " tricks " .

> >

> >

> > Bill

> >

>

>

> There are methods evolved to promote the survival of the entity.

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

 

Hey, was just teasing... you know...

by " playing toombaru! " )

 

 

Bill

 

PS: and maybe there are " tricks " ...

in the sense of mini- " programs " that

seem to induce a shift, and so are

seen as significant, until they are

faded from all significance...

lost in the grand migration of

consciousness (or...) to that Great

Absolute, the Black Hole of Now...

where the solution of all riddles

is in the Grand Dissolution,

and all static constructs go into

a Final Meltdown....

 

or...

 

then again... maybe there aren't )

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> >

> > Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing

in our

> > lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he

says " Just

> > be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a

contradiction. " You

> > can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find that

> > working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the

thought:

> > Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know

this

> > thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

> > happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing

this

> > when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be doing

> > anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes

just

> > thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better ,

it

> > seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have

equal

> > weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your

back for

> > a couple of hours and do nothing.

> >

>

> It is your interpretation of the recommendation, " be mindful of the

> I Am, " to make that an action, an active behavior. If you make

> that interpretation then yes, there is a contradiction.

>

> Either a sense of " I Am " is there or it is not. If there is not

> then there is no need for any teaching. If there *is* then

> being mindful of that is to *simply notice it*, no effort

> involved.

>

> His point is that if there is a sense of self (small s) then

> there are thoughts/feelings such as " I am happy " , " I am sad " ,

> etc. An impressionistic image of " who one is " is composed

> of myriad such contemplations. All of that is false, as there

> is no self in an existential sense. So how to break through

> the very strong predilection to consider that there is?

>

> One approach is to notice the " root sense " of " I am " in any

> such thought/feeling. By being mindful of the root sense of

> " I am " behind any " I am X " thought or feeling, one comes to

> realize that the " I am " portion is always far more significant

> than any X going with that, something like that way any person

> is always far more significant than any clothes they may be

> wearing.

>

> So for example, in terms of your remarks above, if there should

> be the thought, " I should just sit still and let all thoughts

> have equal weight... " , the practice would be to notice the

> sense of " I " behind/underlying that thought, and that while

> yes allowing all thoughts to move through in their " parade " ,

> continually noticing whatever " sense of I " (=I am) that

> underlies whatever may arise.

>

> Continuing in such a way the " sense of I " moves from a

> a background presumption into conscious awareness. It is at

> that point that " I AM " has come into consciousness. For a

> time the " I AM " seems like the Reality, as it seems to

> persist, to be ever-present. But that is not the end,

> as that too eventually fades into something more vast.

>

>

> Bill

 

Good. I will look into it.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nis says in many places that we can do nothing.There is nothing

> in our

> > > lives that does not just happen.But in very many places he

> says " Just

> > > be mindful of the 'I AM' " . To me this feels like a

> contradiction. " You

> > > can do absolutely nothing--but do something anyway. " I find that

> > > working with practices--such as constantly entertaining the

> thought:

> > > Hold the " I AM " , Hold the " I AM " -- is self-stultifying.I know

> this

> > > thouight is happening on its own.And I know other thoughts are

> > > happening on their own along with it--such as " Why am I doing

> this

> > > when it is happening on its own anyway? And who am I to be doing

> > > anything when I am another happening? " The experience becomes

> just

> > > thoughts and more thoughts.Thoughts fighting thoughts. Better ,

> it

> > > seems to me, is to just sit still and let all thoughts have

> equal

> > > weight in the parade.Take the heart-attack machine off your

> back for

> > > a couple of hours and do nothing.

> > >

> >

> > It is your interpretation of the recommendation, " be mindful of the

> > I Am, " to make that an action, an active behavior. If you make

> > that interpretation then yes, there is a contradiction.

> >

> > Either a sense of " I Am " is there or it is not. If there is not

> > then there is no need for any teaching. If there *is* then

> > being mindful of that is to *simply notice it*, no effort

> > involved.

> >

> > His point is that if there is a sense of self (small s) then

> > there are thoughts/feelings such as " I am happy " , " I am sad " ,

> > etc. An impressionistic image of " who one is " is composed

> > of myriad such contemplations. All of that is false, as there

> > is no self in an existential sense. So how to break through

> > the very strong predilection to consider that there is?

> >

> > One approach is to notice the " root sense " of " I am " in any

> > such thought/feeling. By being mindful of the root sense of

> > " I am " behind any " I am X " thought or feeling, one comes to

> > realize that the " I am " portion is always far more significant

> > than any X going with that, something like that way any person

> > is always far more significant than any clothes they may be

> > wearing.

> >

> > So for example, in terms of your remarks above, if there should

> > be the thought, " I should just sit still and let all thoughts

> > have equal weight... " , the practice would be to notice the

> > sense of " I " behind/underlying that thought, and that while

> > yes allowing all thoughts to move through in their " parade " ,

> > continually noticing whatever " sense of I " (=I am) that

> > underlies whatever may arise.

> >

> > Continuing in such a way the " sense of I " moves from a

> > a background presumption into conscious awareness. It is at

> > that point that " I AM " has come into consciousness. For a

> > time the " I AM " seems like the Reality, as it seems to

> > persist, to be ever-present. But that is not the end,

> > as that too eventually fades into something more vast.

> >

> >

> > Bill

>

> Good. I will look into it.

 

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.