Guest guest Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Suppose you could only see when using a telescope, or a microscope. What world would you see, then? A world made of details, a very narrow world. Your world would be a world of remembered disconnected details that thought would knit together. This, of course, is a metaphor for our chronic inattentive blindness. It has been shown by experiments with drivers, that if distracted by a task, such as a conversation, a driver ignores (do not consciously sees) up to 40% of visual input. But wait a minute, aren't most people carrying a conversation with themselves, most of the time? How can they see the subtle tones and shades of the world while plagued by the inattention blindness produced by the chatter of their minds? Indeed, the devil is in the details, and is preventing us to notice the sacredness of the world. We need to relax the focus of the mind, to shut up, and see with panoramic eyes. Maybe then, the forest would emerge from behind the trees. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Suppose you could only see when using > a telescope, or a microscope. What world > would you see, then? A world made of > details, a very narrow world. Your world > would be a world of remembered disconnected > details that thought would knit together. > > This, of course, is a metaphor for our > chronic inattentive blindness. It has > been shown by experiments with drivers, > that if distracted by a task, such as a > conversation, a driver ignores (do not > consciously sees) up to 40% of visual > input. > > But wait a minute, aren't most people > carrying a conversation with themselves, > most of the time? How can they see the > subtle tones and shades of the world > while plagued by the inattention blindness > produced by the chatter of their minds? > > Indeed, the devil is in the details, and is > preventing us to notice the sacredness of > the world. We need to relax the focus of > the mind, to shut up, and see with panoramic > eyes. Maybe then, the forest would emerge > from behind the trees. > > Pete > panorama & #8194; [pan-uh-ram-uh, -rah-muh] –noun 1. an unobstructed and wide view of an extensive area in all directions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Only by avoiding intention will the mind be rid of objects/fantasies. -mahesh jthabuddha <jthabuddhaNisargadatta Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2009 4:14:01 AM Re: The Devil is in the details Nisargadatta, "cerosoul" <pedsie6 > wrote:>> Suppose you could only see when using> a telescope, or a microscope. What world> would you see, then? A world made of > details, a very narrow world. Your world> would be a world of remembered disconnected> details that thought would knit together.> > This, of course, is a metaphor for our> chronic inattentive blindness. It has> been shown by experiments with drivers,> that if distracted by a task, such as a> conversation, a driver ignores (do not> consciously sees) up to 40% of visual> input.> > But wait a minute, aren't most people> carrying a conversation with themselves,> most of the time? How can they see the> subtle tones and shades of the world> while plagued by the inattention blindness> produced by the chatter of their minds?> > Indeed, the devil is in the details, and is> preventing us to notice the sacredness of> the world. We need to relax the focus of> the mind, to shut up, and see with panoramic> eyes. Maybe then, the forest would emerge> from behind the trees.> > Pete>pan & #8901;o & #8901;ram & #8901;a & #8194; [pan-uh-ram- uh, -rah-muh] 1. an unobstructed and wide view of an extensive area in all directions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > Only by avoiding intention will the mind be rid of objects/fantasies. > -mahesh then the mind must avoid itself. what else is the mind but the objects of fantasy? how can one intend to avoid the intent that one is? the whole proposition above is ridiculous. ..b b.b. *************************nnb****************************************** ______________________________ > jthabuddha <jthabuddha > Nisargadatta > Saturday, February 7, 2009 4:14:01 AM > Re: The Devil is in the details > > > Nisargadatta, " cerosoul " <pedsie6@ > wrote: > > > > Suppose you could only see when using > > a telescope, or a microscope. What world > > would you see, then? A world made of > > details, a very narrow world. Your world > > would be a world of remembered disconnected > > details that thought would knit together. > > > > This, of course, is a metaphor for our > > chronic inattentive blindness. It has > > been shown by experiments with drivers, > > that if distracted by a task, such as a > > conversation, a driver ignores (do not > > consciously sees) up to 40% of visual > > input. > > > > But wait a minute, aren't most people > > carrying a conversation with themselves, > > most of the time? How can they see the > > subtle tones and shades of the world > > while plagued by the inattention blindness > > produced by the chatter of their minds? > > > > Indeed, the devil is in the details, and is > > preventing us to notice the sacredness of > > the world. We need to relax the focus of > > the mind, to shut up, and see with panoramic > > eyes. Maybe then, the forest would emerge > > from behind the trees. > > > > Pete > > > > pan & #8901;o & #8901;ram & #8901;a > & #8194; [pan-uh-ram- uh, -rah-muh] > > 1. an unobstructed and wide view of an extensive area in all directions. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he who knows that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be the subject of objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to know what one is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is. -mahesh roberibus111 <Roberibus111Nisargadatta Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2009 3:09:29 PM Re: The Devil is in the details Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@.. .> wrote:>> Only by avoiding intention will the mind be rid of objects/fantasies.> -maheshthen the mind must avoid itself.what else is the mind but the objects of fantasy?how can one intend to avoid the intent that one is?the whole proposition above is ridiculous..b b.b.************ ********* ****nnb** ********* ********* ********* ********* ****____________ _________ _________> jthabuddha <jthabuddha@ ...>> Nisargadatta> Saturday, February 7, 2009 4:14:01 AM> Re: The Devil is in the details> > > Nisargadatta, "cerosoul" <pedsie6@ > wrote:> >> > Suppose you could only see when using> > a telescope, or a microscope. What world> > would you see, then? A world made of > > details, a very narrow world. Your world> > would be a world of remembered disconnected> > details that thought would knit together.> > > > This, of course, is a metaphor for our> > chronic inattentive blindness. It has> > been shown by experiments with drivers,> > that if distracted by a task, such as a> > conversation, a driver ignores (do not> > consciously sees) up to 40% of visual> > input.> > > > But wait a minute, aren't most people> > carrying a conversation with themselves,> > most of the time? How can they see the> > subtle tones and shades of the world> > while plagued by the inattention blindness> > produced by the chatter of their minds?> > > > Indeed, the devil is in the details, and is> > preventing us to notice the sacredness of> > the world. We need to relax the focus of> > the mind, to shut up, and see with panoramic> > eyes. Maybe then, the forest would emerge> > from behind the trees.> > > > Pete> >> > pan & #8901;o & #8901;ram & #8901;a> & #8194; [pan-uh-ram- uh, -rah-muh] > > 1. an unobstructed and wide view of an extensive area in all directions.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he who knows that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be the subject of objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to know what one is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is. > -mahesh if you have to use that many words.. to try and say what you think you know.. you don't know anything at all. once you admit that much you may stand a chance. if you don't admit that you know nothing.. than knowing nothing is as good as it's going to get. quit trying to sound profound and try and at least sound sensible. and as to your asking: " if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? " ... i must ask: what is your intention in asking? you believe that you're thinking outside the box... while all along being sealed within the illusion. it's laughable. ..b b.b. _______________________________ > roberibus111 <Roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, February 7, 2009 3:09:29 PM > Re: The Devil is in the details > > > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@ .> wrote: > > > > Only by avoiding intention will the mind be rid of objects/fantasies. > > -mahesh > > then the mind must avoid itself. > > what else is the mind but the objects of fantasy? > > how can one intend to avoid the intent that one is? > > the whole proposition above is ridiculous. > > .b b.b. > > ************ ********* ****nnb** ********* ********* ********* ********* **** > > ____________ _________ _________ > > jthabuddha <jthabuddha@ ...> > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, February 7, 2009 4:14:01 AM > > Re: The Devil is in the details > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " cerosoul " <pedsie6@ > wrote: > > > > > > Suppose you could only see when using > > > a telescope, or a microscope. What world > > > would you see, then? A world made of > > > details, a very narrow world. Your world > > > would be a world of remembered disconnected > > > details that thought would knit together. > > > > > > This, of course, is a metaphor for our > > > chronic inattentive blindness. It has > > > been shown by experiments with drivers, > > > that if distracted by a task, such as a > > > conversation, a driver ignores (do not > > > consciously sees) up to 40% of visual > > > input. > > > > > > But wait a minute, aren't most people > > > carrying a conversation with themselves, > > > most of the time? How can they see the > > > subtle tones and shades of the world > > > while plagued by the inattention blindness > > > produced by the chatter of their minds? > > > > > > Indeed, the devil is in the details, and is > > > preventing us to notice the sacredness of > > > the world. We need to relax the focus of > > > the mind, to shut up, and see with panoramic > > > eyes. Maybe then, the forest would emerge > > > from behind the trees. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > pan & #8901;o & #8901;ram & #8901;a > > & #8194; [pan-uh-ram- uh, -rah-muh] > > > > 1. an unobstructed and wide view of an extensive area in all directions. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good > pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent > entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he who knows > that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be the subject of > objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his > objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to know what one > is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is. > > -mahesh > > > > > > if you have to use that many words.. > > to try and say what you think you know.. > > you don't know anything at all. > > once you admit that much you may stand a chance. > > if you don't admit that you know nothing.. > > than knowing nothing is as good as it's going to get. > > quit trying to sound profound and try and at least sound sensible. > > and as to your asking: > > " if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how > can he harbour intentions? " ... > > i must ask: > > what is your intention in asking? > > you believe that you're thinking outside the box... > > while all along being sealed within the illusion. > > it's laughable. > > .b b.b. > > P: Could it be he doesn't know the meaning of the word intention? Obviously, he intended to write that. He intended for people to read it because he clicked on send. So maybe he's being lived by a semantically challenged god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good > pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent > entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he who knows > that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be the subject of > objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his > objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to know what one > is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is. > > -mahesh > > > > > > if you have to use that many words.. > > to try and say what you think you know.. > > you don't know anything at all. > > once you admit that much you may stand a chance. > > if you don't admit that you know nothing.. > > than knowing nothing is as good as it's going to get. > > quit trying to sound profound and try and at least sound sensible. > > and as to your asking: > > " if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how > can he harbour intentions? " ... > > i must ask: > > what is your intention in asking? > > you believe that you're thinking outside the box... > > while all along being sealed within the illusion. > > it's laughable. > > .b b.b. > " He " is not sealed within the illusion. " He " IS the illusion. .......and that condition oscillates between mania and depression. It is laughable only to those entangled in its grasp. toombzru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Suppose you could only see when using > a telescope, or a microscope. What world > would you see, then? A world made of > details, a very narrow world. Your world > would be a world of remembered disconnected > details that thought would knit together. > > This, of course, is a metaphor for our > chronic inattentive blindness. It has > been shown by experiments with drivers, > that if distracted by a task, such as a > conversation, a driver ignores (do not > consciously sees) up to 40% of visual > input. > > But wait a minute, aren't most people > carrying a conversation with themselves, > most of the time? How can they see the > subtle tones and shades of the world > while plagued by the inattention blindness > produced by the chatter of their minds? > > Indeed, the devil is in the details, and is > preventing us to notice the sacredness of > the world. We need to relax the focus of > the mind, to shut up, and see with panoramic > eyes. Maybe then, the forest would emerge > from behind the trees. > > Pete > I know of one Zen teacher who speaks (after a not dissimilar fashion) of the need to use " ten-direction " eyes. Many thanks for this post, Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > > > only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good > > pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent > > entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he who knows > > that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be the subject of > > objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his > > objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to know what one > > is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is. > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > if you have to use that many words.. > > > > to try and say what you think you know.. > > > > you don't know anything at all. > > > > once you admit that much you may stand a chance. > > > > if you don't admit that you know nothing.. > > > > than knowing nothing is as good as it's going to get. > > > > quit trying to sound profound and try and at least sound sensible. > > > > and as to your asking: > > > > " if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how > > can he harbour intentions? " ... > > > > i must ask: > > > > what is your intention in asking? > > > > you believe that you're thinking outside the box... > > > > while all along being sealed within the illusion. > > > > it's laughable. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > " He " is not sealed within the illusion. > > " He " IS the illusion. > > ......and that condition oscillates between mania and depression. > > It is laughable only to those entangled in its grasp. toombzru well toomrzru.. you are not in your words.. you ARE your words. a condition that oscillates between weird and weirder. how did you get so entangled in your " self " ? it seems to have led you down a crooked path.. travel by which has led to your erroneous belief.. that you are other than the who you speak about and to whom you speak. as if 'you' had something to 'teach'. you don't. no teaching..no teacher...no taught. sorry big fella. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Suppose you could only see when using > a telescope, or a microscope. What world > would you see, then? A world made of > details, a very narrow world. Your world > would be a world of remembered disconnected > details that thought would knit together. > > This, of course, is a metaphor for our > chronic inattentive blindness. It has > been shown by experiments with drivers, > that if distracted by a task, such as a > conversation, a driver ignores (do not > consciously sees) up to 40% of visual > input. > > But wait a minute, aren't most people > carrying a conversation with themselves, > most of the time? How can they see the > subtle tones and shades of the world > while plagued by the inattention blindness > produced by the chatter of their minds? > > Indeed, the devil is in the details, and is > preventing us to notice the sacredness of > the world. We need to relax the focus of > the mind, to shut up, and see with panoramic > eyes. Maybe then, the forest would emerge > from behind the trees. > > Pete > I know of one Zen teacher who speaks of the need for having " ten- direction " eyes ... Which I take to be not dissimilar ... Many thanks for the post, Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > > > only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good > > pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent > > entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he who knows > > that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be the subject of > > objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his > > objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to know what one > > is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is. > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > if you have to use that many words.. > > > > to try and say what you think you know.. > > > > you don't know anything at all. > > > > once you admit that much you may stand a chance. > > > > if you don't admit that you know nothing.. > > > > than knowing nothing is as good as it's going to get. > > > > quit trying to sound profound and try and at least sound sensible. > > > > and as to your asking: > > > > " if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how > > can he harbour intentions? " ... > > > > i must ask: > > > > what is your intention in asking? > > > > you believe that you're thinking outside the box... > > > > while all along being sealed within the illusion. > > > > it's laughable. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > P: Could it be he doesn't know the meaning of > the word intention? Obviously, he intended to > write that. He intended for people to read it > because he clicked on send. So maybe he's > being lived by a semantically challenged god. > :-) he knows not that he knows to not know what he doesn't know. therefore he believes that he does know that which he doesn't know. so his lie is unintentional. that's exactly what makes it unforgivable. and it will remain so until.. there is no one to need nor anyone to give forgiveness... nor intend a goddamn thing. thus spake through: ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace of existence & non existence, intention gets created with identity as object & subject, in child consciousness the actions are without intentions they are spontaneous. -mahesh roberibus111 <Roberibus111Nisargadatta Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 6:05:47 AM Re: The Devil is in the details Nisargadatta, "cerosoul" <pedsie6 > wrote:>> Nisargadatta, "roberibus111" <Roberibus111@ >> wrote:> >> > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote:> > >> > > only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good> > pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent> > entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he who knows> > that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be the subject of> > objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his> > objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to know what one> > is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is. > > > -mahesh> > > > > > > > > > > > if you have to use that many words..> > > > to try and say what you think you know..> > > > you don't know anything at all.> > > > once you admit that much you may stand a chance.> > > > if you don't admit that you know nothing..> > > > than knowing nothing is as good as it's going to get.> > > > quit trying to sound profound and try and at least sound sensible.> > > > and as to your asking:> > > > "if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how> > can he harbour intentions?" ...> > > > i must ask:> > > > what is your intention in asking?> > > > you believe that you're thinking outside the box...> > > > while all along being sealed within the illusion.> > > > it's laughable.> > > > .b b.b.> > > > > P: Could it be he doesn't know the meaning of> the word intention? Obviously, he intended to> write that. He intended for people to read it> because he clicked on send. So maybe he's> being lived by a semantically challenged god.>:-)he knows not that he knows to not know what he doesn't know.therefore he believes that he does know that which he doesn't know.so his lie is unintentional.that's exactly what makes it unforgivable.and it will remain so until..there is no one to need nor anyone to give forgiveness. ..nor intend a goddamn thing.thus spake through:.b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 The things I seem to " do " are not actions. They are reactions. " I " is also a reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace of existence & non existence, intention gets created with identity as object & subject, in child consciousness the actions are without intentions they are spontaneous. > -mahesh as soon as that child consciousness starts feeling.. " i am " .. " I am HUNGRY " . Waahhhhhhh! it's intending to somehow or other.. by hook or by crook... ....to get some food. and before that.. that child consciosness knew without knowing how it knew.. it wanted AIR! Waaaaahhh! it knew without knowing how it knew.. it was going to get some AIR...NOW....or it would DIE. in effect the illusion of " me " exists in and as FEAR and NEED.. it is indeed those things themselves and exists as false Identity. saying: " child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace of existence & non existence " is believing that there is a " somewhat " .. which " lives " for " it's " own pleasure " .. in contradistinction from the pleasure of non-self (other).. or no pleasure whatsoever.. neither pleasure nor pain. that's just bullshit. all " action " is spontaneous. there is no one to intend doing anything. that's why it's funny hearing a trapped ghost tell you.. how it can go through the walls that only seem to cage it.. anytime it wants, but that it would rather.. remain here pretending to be trapped just to tell other ghosts.. that they aren't trapped and can be free if they just listen. in short: truth walks bullshit talks. if you think that you (trapped ghost) are free.. just quit whining and spouting off about your freedom.. and EXERCISE your freedom and just vaporize your'self " .. and your " self's " world and all it's problems. don't leave graffiti in the old neighborhood. it gets taken literally and spawns self righteous gangs in the hood. they start fighting about who has it right.. and therefore about who has the right.. to make their beliefs the universal beliefs of each and all. some believe that they are voices in the wilderness.. LOL! talk about being lost eh dude? ..b.b.b. > ________________________________ > roberibus111 <Roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, February 9, 2009 6:05:47 AM > Re: The Devil is in the details > > > Nisargadatta, " cerosoul " <pedsie6@ > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > > > > > only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good > > > pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent > > > entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he who knows > > > that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be the subject of > > > objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his > > > objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to know what one > > > is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is.. > > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you have to use that many words.. > > > > > > to try and say what you think you know.. > > > > > > you don't know anything at all. > > > > > > once you admit that much you may stand a chance. > > > > > > if you don't admit that you know nothing.. > > > > > > than knowing nothing is as good as it's going to get. > > > > > > quit trying to sound profound and try and at least sound sensible. > > > > > > and as to your asking: > > > > > > " if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how > > > can he harbour intentions? " ... > > > > > > i must ask: > > > > > > what is your intention in asking? > > > > > > you believe that you're thinking outside the box.... > > > > > > while all along being sealed within the illusion. > > > > > > it's laughable. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > P: Could it be he doesn't know the meaning of > > the word intention? Obviously, he intended to > > write that. He intended for people to read it > > because he clicked on send. So maybe he's > > being lived by a semantically challenged god. > > > > :-) > > he knows not that he knows to not know what he doesn't know. > > therefore he believes that he does know that which he doesn't know. > > so his lie is unintentional. > > that's exactly what makes it unforgivable. > > and it will remain so until.. > > there is no one to need nor anyone to give forgiveness. .. > > nor intend a goddamn thing. > > thus spake through: > > .b b.b. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Hi, .....and for us adults: it has been already scientifically demonstrated that we always become post-hoc aware of what we do. So, nobody (no self/ego) is the master in its own house. Freud talked about it and he was the first modern guy (Epicureans did it before) to establish the existence of the Unconscious! fuzzy Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace of > existence & non existence, intention gets created with identity as > object & subject, in child consciousness the actions are without > intentions they are spontaneous. > > -mahesh > > > > as soon as that child consciousness starts feeling.. " i am " .. > > " I am HUNGRY " . > > Waahhhhhhh! > > it's intending to somehow or other.. > > by hook or by crook... > > ...to get some food. > > and before that.. > > that child consciosness knew without knowing how it knew.. > > it wanted AIR! > > Waaaaahhh! > > it knew without knowing how it knew.. > > it was going to get some AIR...NOW....or it would DIE. > > in effect the illusion of " me " exists in and as FEAR and NEED.. > > it is indeed those things themselves and exists as false Identity. > > saying: > > " child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace of > existence & non existence " > > is believing that there is a " somewhat " .. > > which " lives " for " it's " own pleasure " .. > > in contradistinction from the pleasure of non-self (other).. > > or no pleasure whatsoever.. > > neither pleasure nor pain. > > that's just bullshit. > > all " action " is spontaneous. > > there is no one to intend doing anything. > > that's why it's funny hearing a trapped ghost tell you.. > > how it can go through the walls that only seem to cage it.. > > anytime it wants, but that it would rather.. > > remain here pretending to be trapped just to tell other ghosts.. > > that they aren't trapped and can be free if they just listen. > > in short: > > truth walks bullshit talks. > > if you think that you (trapped ghost) are free.. > > just quit whining and spouting off about your freedom.. > > and EXERCISE your freedom and just vaporize your'self " .. > > and your " self's " world and all it's problems. > > don't leave graffiti in the old neighborhood. > > it gets taken literally and spawns self righteous gangs in the hood. > > they start fighting about who has it right.. > > and therefore about who has the right.. > > to make their beliefs the universal beliefs of each and all. > > some believe that they are voices in the wilderness.. > > LOL! > > talk about being lost eh dude? > > .b.b.b. > > ________________________________ > > roberibus111 <Roberibus111@> > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 9, 2009 6:05:47 AM > > Re: The Devil is in the details > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " cerosoul " <pedsie6@ > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good > > > > pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent > > > > entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he who > knows > > > > that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be the > subject of > > > > objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his > > > > objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to know > what one > > > > is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is.. > > > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you have to use that many words.. > > > > > > > > to try and say what you think you know.. > > > > > > > > you don't know anything at all. > > > > > > > > once you admit that much you may stand a chance. > > > > > > > > if you don't admit that you know nothing.. > > > > > > > > than knowing nothing is as good as it's going to get. > > > > > > > > quit trying to sound profound and try and at least sound sensible. > > > > > > > > and as to your asking: > > > > > > > > " if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how > > > > can he harbour intentions? " ... > > > > > > > > i must ask: > > > > > > > > what is your intention in asking? > > > > > > > > you believe that you're thinking outside the box.... > > > > > > > > while all along being sealed within the illusion. > > > > > > > > it's laughable. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > P: Could it be he doesn't know the meaning of > > > the word intention? Obviously, he intended to > > > write that. He intended for people to read it > > > because he clicked on send. So maybe he's > > > being lived by a semantically challenged god. > > > > > > > :-) > > > > he knows not that he knows to not know what he doesn't know. > > > > therefore he believes that he does know that which he doesn't know. > > > > so his lie is unintentional. > > > > that's exactly what makes it unforgivable. > > > > and it will remain so until.. > > > > there is no one to need nor anyone to give forgiveness. .. > > > > nor intend a goddamn thing. > > > > thus spake through: > > > > .b b.b. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fuzzy2010 " <fuzzy2010 wrote: > > Hi, > > ....and for us adults: it has been already scientifically > demonstrated that we always become post-hoc aware of what we do. So, > nobody (no self/ego) is the master in its own house. Freud talked > about it and he was the first modern guy (Epicureans did it before) > to establish the existence of the Unconscious! > > fuzzy talk about being lost eh dude? science " proves " it's own premises. no differently then the way the mystic proves his own bullshit. all the theories and calculations last just as long as they will.. then are transmuted into what's now believed to be " Bigger Picture " . ...a more comprehensive and all inclusive formula and/or belief. is it that hard to see the ridiculousness of buying into either? unconscious, pre-conscious, super-conscious, GOD CONSCIOUSNESS.. are all a bunch of hooey. you don't know what you are talking while talking about consciousness. you do however have a religious belief that: 1. you " AM " 2. as " AM " , (you) know all things seen and unseen. 3. as " you " , (you) are composite stuff made up of ....all these levels and degrees of consciousness.. 4. that " you " ARE indeed all these domains of awareness PLUS! ....++++ the ONE which IS (as Identity) the KING KNOWER.. of all this crap. well.. first of all, that places way too much meaning on consciousness. it's really not all that important or of any significance.. beyond the borders of whatever domains it inhabits or penetrates. i suppose an bug awareness feels that it too.. sits at the pinnacle of power.. and CENTER of God's Grace. LOL! practically speaking it all depends on who's bullshit you buy. some few there are that have been chosen to not choose at all. those seem to just sit and do nothing like a mountainous lump of lead. but if you can escape Time's Domain but for one nanosecond of WORTH.. the pattern emerging in space and time through and throughout eons.. displays the non-textual prowess that it IS. nothing whatsoever matters. nothing whatsoever is replaceable. nothing whatsoever is other than anything or everything. nothing whatsoever is wasted or needed. nothing whatsoever can be said without lying immediately. ..b.b.b. p.s. it's late in the day.. now that it's existence is proven... do you know where your Unconscious is? whatever you do, it's already been decided.. and you've already set out to do that before you even know you have. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 in a child all actions come spontaneously when it cries it is fed & when it vomits it is presumed that stomach is full. similar to that all actions like urinating or passing motions come spontaneously without intentions. here the child is not intending it wants to urinate etc. It is like being in deep sleep state wherein all actions are performed without orientation or presumption, the existence in waking state becomes non existence in deep sleep state. the five elements ie. water (blood) continues to circulate, air (breathing) continues to flow, fire (digestion) continues to burn , earth (organs) continues to perform, space (mind) continues to be in dreamless state all devoid of intentions but acting spontaneously ie. without awareness. -mahesh roberibus111 <Roberibus111Nisargadatta Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 2:00:14 PM Re: The Devil is in the details Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@.. .> wrote:>> child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace ofexistence & non existence, intention gets created with identity asobject & subject, in child consciousness the actions are withoutintentions they are spontaneous. > -mahesh as soon as that child consciousness starts feeling.."i am".."I am HUNGRY".Waahhhhhhh!it's intending to somehow or other..by hook or by crook......to get some food.and before that..that child consciosness knew without knowing how it knew..it wanted AIR!Waaaaahhh!it knew without knowing how it knew..it was going to get some AIR...NOW... .or it would DIE.in effect the illusion of "me" exists in and as FEAR and NEED..it is indeed those things themselves and exists as false Identity.saying:"child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace ofexistence & non existence"is believing that there is a "somewhat"..which "lives" for "it's" own pleasure"..in contradistinction from the pleasure of non-self (other)..or no pleasure whatsoever..neither pleasure nor pain.that's just bullshit.all "action" is spontaneous.there is no one to intend doing anything.that's why it's funny hearing a trapped ghost tell you..how it can go through the walls that only seem to cage it..anytime it wants, but that it would rather..remain here pretending to be trapped just to tell other ghosts..that they aren't trapped and can be free if they just listen.in short:truth walks bullshit talks.if you think that you (trapped ghost) are free..just quit whining and spouting off about your freedom..and EXERCISE your freedom and just vaporize your'self"..and your"self's" world and all it's problems.don't leave graffiti in the old neighborhood.it gets taken literally and spawns self righteous gangs in the hood.they start fighting about who has it right..and therefore about who has the right..to make their beliefs the universal beliefs of each and all.some believe that they are voices in the wilderness..LOL!talk about being lost eh dude?.b.b.b.> ____________ _________ _________ __> roberibus111 <Roberibus111@ ...>> Nisargadatta> Monday, February 9, 2009 6:05:47 AM> Re: The Devil is in the details> > > Nisargadatta, "cerosoul" <pedsie6@ > wrote:> >> > Nisargadatta, "roberibus111" <Roberibus111@ >> > wrote:> > >> > > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@>wrote:> > > >> > > > only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good> > > pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent> > > entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he whoknows> > > that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be thesubject of> > > objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his> > > objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to knowwhat one> > > is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is.. > > > > -mahesh> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you have to use that many words..> > > > > > to try and say what you think you know..> > > > > > you don't know anything at all.> > > > > > once you admit that much you may stand a chance.> > > > > > if you don't admit that you know nothing..> > > > > > than knowing nothing is as good as it's going to get.> > > > > > quit trying to sound profound and try and at least sound sensible.> > > > > > and as to your asking:> > > > > > "if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how> > > can he harbour intentions?" ...> > > > > > i must ask:> > > > > > what is your intention in asking?> > > > > > you believe that you're thinking outside the box....> > > > > > while all along being sealed within the illusion.> > > > > > it's laughable.> > > > > > .b b.b.> > > > > > > > P: Could it be he doesn't know the meaning of> > the word intention? Obviously, he intended to> > write that. He intended for people to read it> > because he clicked on send. So maybe he's> > being lived by a semantically challenged god.> >> > :-)> > he knows not that he knows to not know what he doesn't know.> > therefore he believes that he does know that which he doesn't know.> > so his lie is unintentional.> > that's exactly what makes it unforgivable.> > and it will remain so until..> > there is no one to need nor anyone to give forgiveness. ..> > nor intend a goddamn thing.> > thus spake through:> > .b b.b.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > in a child all actions come spontaneously when it cries it is fed & when it vomits it is presumed that stomach is full. similar to that all actions like urinating or passing motions come spontaneously without intentions. here the child is not intending it wants to urinate etc. It is like being in deep sleep state wherein all actions are performed without orientation or presumption, the existence in waking state becomes non existence in deep sleep state. the five elements ie. water (blood) continues to circulate, air (breathing) continues to flow, fire (digestion) continues to burn , earth (organs) continues to perform, space (mind) continues to be in dreamless state all devoid of intentions but acting spontaneously ie.. without awareness. > -mahesh nothing is that is without intent. intent is what is means. IS-NESS and INTENT are synonomous. to talk about that which is without awareness.. is utter and complete gobbledygook. you're speaking as.. and from within... awareness. about what supposedly lies outside of that field awareness. there is an impossibility gap between connecting.. a wisp of " energy " 'conscious' as 'self'.. and " THAT " . not you nor the baby in full awake mode.. or in deepest unconsciousness.. or in whatever " level " of " Awareness " that you want to believe in.. or believe that you operate in or as.. is ever going to usurp the hand that cradles it. within a Vastness beyond thought.. TOTAL: UNKNOWINGNESS...nothing known or to be known... INDIFFERENCE....neither good nor bad, love nor hate... NON SPONTANEITY...timeless without event... UNAVOIDABLE. ABSOLUTE AND WITHOUT SURPRISE. the MOST EVIDENT. all the rest of the stuff about the child, his spontaneity etc... is just chickenshit fodder for the nincompoop to play with. let him play.. there is a Greater Treasure. ..b b.b. *******************************NNB************************************ ________________________________ > roberibus111 <Roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, February 9, 2009 2:00:14 PM > Re: The Devil is in the details > > > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@ .> wrote: > > > > child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace of > existence & non existence, intention gets created with identity as > object & subject, in child consciousness the actions are without > intentions they are spontaneous. > > -mahesh > > as soon as that child consciousness starts feeling.. " i am " .. > > " I am HUNGRY " . > > Waahhhhhhh! > > it's intending to somehow or other.. > > by hook or by crook... > > ...to get some food. > > and before that.. > > that child consciosness knew without knowing how it knew.. > > it wanted AIR! > > Waaaaahhh! > > it knew without knowing how it knew.. > > it was going to get some AIR...NOW... ..or it would DIE. > > in effect the illusion of " me " exists in and as FEAR and NEED.. > > it is indeed those things themselves and exists as false Identity. > > saying: > > " child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace of > existence & non existence " > > is believing that there is a " somewhat " .. > > which " lives " for " it's " own pleasure " .. > > in contradistinction from the pleasure of non-self (other).. > > or no pleasure whatsoever.. > > neither pleasure nor pain. > > that's just bullshit. > > all " action " is spontaneous. > > there is no one to intend doing anything. > > that's why it's funny hearing a trapped ghost tell you.. > > how it can go through the walls that only seem to cage it.. > > anytime it wants, but that it would rather.. > > remain here pretending to be trapped just to tell other ghosts.. > > that they aren't trapped and can be free if they just listen. > > in short: > > truth walks bullshit talks. > > if you think that you (trapped ghost) are free.. > > just quit whining and spouting off about your freedom.. > > and EXERCISE your freedom and just vaporize your'self " .. > > and your " self's " world and all it's problems. > > don't leave graffiti in the old neighborhood. > > it gets taken literally and spawns self righteous gangs in the hood. > > they start fighting about who has it right.. > > and therefore about who has the right.. > > to make their beliefs the universal beliefs of each and all. > > some believe that they are voices in the wilderness.. > > LOL! > > talk about being lost eh dude? > > .b.b.b. > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > roberibus111 <Roberibus111@ ...> > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 9, 2009 6:05:47 AM > > Re: The Devil is in the details > > > > > > Nisargadatta@ .. com, " cerosoul " <pedsie6@ > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > only somebody who fancies that he lives according to his own good > > > > pleasure can have intentions. if he truly knows that as an apparent > > > > entity he is being lived, how can he harbour intentions? he who > knows > > > > that he being lived must know that as such he cannot be the > subject of > > > > objects. since, being lived, he is no subject, object cannot be his > > > > objects. therefore to know that one is being lived is to know > what one > > > > is not, and to know what one is not is to know what one is.. > > > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you have to use that many words.. > > > > > > > > to try and say what you think you know.. > > > > > > > > you don't know anything at all. > > > > > > > > once you admit that much you may stand a chance. > > > > > > > > if you don't admit that you know nothing.. > > > > > > > > than knowing nothing is as good as it's going to get. > > > > > > > > quit trying to sound profound and try and at least sound sensible. > > > > > > > > and as to your asking: > > > > > > > > " if he truly knows that as an apparent entity he is being lived, how > > > > can he harbour intentions? " ... > > > > > > > > i must ask: > > > > > > > > what is your intention in asking? > > > > > > > > you believe that you're thinking outside the box.... > > > > > > > > while all along being sealed within the illusion. > > > > > > > > it's laughable. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > P: Could it be he doesn't know the meaning of > > > the word intention? Obviously, he intended to > > > write that. He intended for people to read it > > > because he clicked on send. So maybe he's > > > being lived by a semantically challenged god. > > > > > > > :-) > > > > he knows not that he knows to not know what he doesn't know. > > > > therefore he believes that he does know that which he doesn't know. > > > > so his lie is unintentional. > > > > that's exactly what makes it unforgivable. > > > > and it will remain so until.. > > > > there is no one to need nor anyone to give forgiveness. .. > > > > nor intend a goddamn thing. > > > > thus spake through: > > > > .b b.b. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > in a child all actions come spontaneously when it cries it is fed & when it vomits it is presumed that stomach is full. similar to that all actions like urinating or passing motions come spontaneously without intentions. here the child is not intending it wants to urinate etc. It is like being in deep sleep state wherein all actions are performed without orientation or presumption, the existence in waking state becomes non existence in deep sleep state. the five elements ie. water (blood) continues to circulate, air (breathing) continues to flow, fire (digestion) continues to burn , earth (organs) continues to perform, space (mind) continues to be in dreamless state all devoid of intentions but acting spontaneously ie.. without awareness. > -mahesh > > P: Yes, Mahesh, the above is true, but you were not writing for babies. You wrote to adults whose brains have been programmed to intend. If you pay attention to how your mind works, you'll notice that sensations such as sound, touch, taste smell, or visual appear already labeled as pleasant, unpleasant or neither. We don't will these labels, they are automatically branded so. This labels prompt the urge to accept or reject. This urges are the basis of intentions, and the root of separation. The most basic separation is that of being a subject to our sensations. Even Saints intend to eat meat or not, and to give in to sexual urges, or not. Intentions are inescapable. Brains can't function without them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace of > existence & non existence, intention gets created with identity as > object & subject, in child consciousness the actions are without > intentions they are spontaneous. > > -mahesh > > > > as soon as that child consciousness starts feeling.. " i am " .. > > " I am HUNGRY " . > > Waahhhhhhh! > > it's intending to somehow or other.. > > by hook or by crook... > > ...to get some food. > > and before that.. > > that child consciosness knew without knowing how it knew.. > > it wanted AIR! > > Waaaaahhh! > > it knew without knowing how it knew.. > > it was going to get some AIR...NOW....or it would DIE. > > in effect the illusion of " me " exists in and as FEAR and NEED.. > > it is indeed those things themselves and exists as false Identity. > > saying: > > " child lives according to its own pleasure without the trace of > existence & non existence " > > is believing that there is a " somewhat " .. > > which " lives " for " it's " own pleasure " .. > > in contradistinction from the pleasure of non-self (other).. > > or no pleasure whatsoever.. > > neither pleasure nor pain. > > that's just bullshit. > > all " action " is spontaneous. > > there is no one to intend doing anything. > > that's why it's funny hearing a trapped ghost tell you.. > > how it can go through the walls that only seem to cage it.. > > anytime it wants, but that it would rather.. > > remain here pretending to be trapped just to tell other ghosts.. > > that they aren't trapped and can be free if they just listen. > > in short: > > truth walks bullshit talks. > > if you think that you (trapped ghost) are free.. > > just quit whining and spouting off about your freedom.. > > and EXERCISE your freedom and just vaporize your'self " .. > > and your " self's " world and all it's problems. > > don't leave graffiti in the old neighborhood. > > it gets taken literally and spawns self righteous gangs in the hood. > > they start fighting about who has it right.. > > and therefore about who has the right.. > > to make their beliefs the universal beliefs of each and all. > > some believe that they are voices in the wilderness.. > > LOL! > > talk about being lost eh dude? > > .b.b.b. > LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzy2010@ " <fuzzy2010@> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > ....and for us adults: it has been already scientifically > > demonstrated that we always become post-hoc aware of what we do. So, > > nobody (no self/ego) is the master in its own house. Freud talked > > about it and he was the first modern guy (Epicureans did it before) > > to establish the existence of the Unconscious! > > > > fuzzy > > > > > talk about being lost eh dude? > > science " proves " it's own premises. F: Which are the premises of science? > no differently then the way the mystic proves his own bullshit. F: this might be correct, but mystics' own bullshit experiences are not reproducible! > all the theories and calculations last just as long as they will.. > > then are transmuted into what's now believed to be " Bigger Picture " . > > ..a more comprehensive and all inclusive formula and/or belief. F: science deals with theories and hypothesis - not with (ultimate) 'truth'! > is it that hard to see the ridiculousness of buying into either? > > unconscious, pre-conscious, super-conscious, GOD CONSCIOUSNESS.. > > are all a bunch of hooey. > > you don't know what you are talking while talking about consciousness. > > you do however have a religious belief that: > > 1. you " AM " > > 2. as " AM " , (you) know all things seen and unseen. > > 3. as " you " , (you) are composite stuff made up of > > ...all these levels and degrees of consciousness.. > > 4. that " you " ARE indeed all these domains of awareness PLUS! > > ...++++ the ONE which IS (as Identity) the KING KNOWER.. > > of all this crap. F: Maybe.....sometimes > > well.. > > first of all, that places way too much meaning on consciousness. > > it's really not all that important or of any significance.. > > beyond the borders of whatever domains it inhabits or penetrates. > > i suppose an bug awareness feels that it too.. > > sits at the pinnacle of power.. > > and CENTER of God's Grace. > > LOL! F: the unconscious is structured like a language (not only in my opinion). I am more interested in the unconscioius than in the ego-blah, blah, blah of " consciousness " , generally speaking. > practically speaking it all depends on who's bullshit you buy. > > some few there are that have been chosen to not choose at all. > > those seem to just sit and do nothing like a mountainous lump of lead. > > but if you can escape Time's Domain but for one nanosecond of WORTH.. > > the pattern emerging in space and time through and throughout eons.. > > displays the non-textual prowess that it IS. > > nothing whatsoever matters. > > nothing whatsoever is replaceable. > > nothing whatsoever is other than anything or everything. > > nothing whatsoever is wasted or needed. > > nothing whatsoever can be said without lying immediately. F: everything matters, all is replaceable, nothing is the absence of a thing (any or every), everything is needed, and wasted....the word is the death of the thing (Hegel), i.e. quite more than just a lie. Entering language we enter the realm of hungry spirits, of death. > .b.b.b. > > > p.s. > > it's late in the day.. > > now that it's existence is proven... > > do you know where your Unconscious is? > > whatever you do, it's already been decided.. > > and you've already set out to do that before you even know you have. > > zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ ....entering language, the unconscious emerges. Well, if everything I do is already decided, something, who took the decisions....if not the unconscious. regards, FuzzyL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 thoughts cease when we are in a deep sleep state that does not mean our brain is not working. on waking up thought arises that I am & the world is projected as our perception ie. conditioning is a result of I amness. in child consciousness I amness is absent like in deep sleep state. -mahesh cerosoul <pedsie6Nisargadatta Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 10:44:50 PM Re: The Devil is in the details Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@.. .> wrote:>> in a child all actions come spontaneously when it cries it is fed & when it vomits it is presumed that stomach is full. similar tothat all actions like urinating or passing motions come spontaneouslywithout intentions. here the child is not intending it wants tourinate etc. It is like being in deep sleep state wherein all actionsare performed without orientation or presumption, the existence inwaking state becomes non existence in deep sleep state. the fiveelements ie. water (blood) continues to circulate, air (breathing)continues to flow, fire (digestion) continues to burn , earth (organs)continues to perform, space (mind) continues to be in dreamlessstate all devoid of intentions but acting spontaneously ie.. withoutawareness. > -mahesh > > P: Yes, Mahesh, the above is true, butyou were not writing for babies. Youwrote to adults whose brains have beenprogrammed to intend. If you pay attentionto how your mind works, you'll notice thatsensations such as sound, touch, tastesmell, or visual appear already labeled as pleasant, unpleasant or neither. We don'twill these labels, they are automaticallybranded so. This labels prompt the urge toaccept or reject. This urges are the basisof intentions, and the root of separation.The most basic separation is that of beinga subject to our sensations. Even Saintsintend to eat meat or not, and to give into sexual urges, or not. Intentions areinescapable. Brains can't function withoutthem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fuzzy2010 " <fuzzy2010 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzy2010@ " <fuzzy2010@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > ....and for us adults: it has been already scientifically > > > demonstrated that we always become post-hoc aware of what we do. So, > > > nobody (no self/ego) is the master in its own house. Freud talked > > > about it and he was the first modern guy (Epicureans did it before) > > > to establish the existence of the Unconscious! > > > > > > fuzzy > > > > > > > > > > talk about being lost eh dude? > > > > science " proves " it's own premises. > > > F: Which are the premises of science? (.b b.b.) those my child are the tenets " proved " by the scientific method. of course that would be understood by the adults here. > > no differently then the way the mystic proves his own bullshit. > > > F: this might be correct, but mystics' own bullshit experiences are not reproducible! (.b b.b.) oh for christ sake they have been reproduced since time immemorial. what's the matter with you. they all agree on the basics. > > > all the theories and calculations last just as long as they will.. > > > > then are transmuted into what's now believed to be " Bigger Picture " . > > > > ..a more comprehensive and all inclusive formula and/or belief. > > > F: science deals with theories and hypothesis - not with (ultimate) 'truth'! (.b b.b.) science doesn't deal with anything. there are no things to deal with. science is a tale told by scared lost children. they hope to scare the boogey man away! and " explain " everything.. just the way they believe it must " be " . hypothesize that. hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa! > > is it that hard to see the ridiculousness of buying into either? > > > > unconscious, pre-conscious, super-conscious, GOD CONSCIOUSNESS.. > > > > are all a bunch of hooey. > > > > you don't know what you are talking while talking about consciousness. > > > > you do however have a religious belief that: > > > > 1. you " AM " > > > > 2. as " AM " , (you) know all things seen and unseen. > > > > 3. as " you " , (you) are composite stuff made up of > > > > ...all these levels and degrees of consciousness.. > > > > 4. that " you " ARE indeed all these domains of awareness PLUS! > > > > ...++++ the ONE which IS (as Identity) the KING KNOWER.. > > > > of all this crap. > > F: Maybe.....sometimes > > > > > well.. > > > > first of all, that places way too much meaning on consciousness. > > > > it's really not all that important or of any significance.. > > > > beyond the borders of whatever domains it inhabits or penetrates. > > > > i suppose an bug awareness feels that it too.. > > > > sits at the pinnacle of power.. > > > > and CENTER of God's Grace. > > > > LOL! > > F: the unconscious is structured like a language (not only in my opinion). (.b b.b.) for you all there is is 'your' opinion. you wouldn't bother claiming another's. don't try that old cop out. and there is no structure to any consciousness. you're not dealing with material stuff. structure is a delimiting aspect of " matter " . what's the matter with you? F: >I am more > interested in the unconscioius than in the ego-blah, blah, blah of " consciousness " , > generally speaking. (.b b.b.) well good for you. so what? your interests don't count for much in this or any other world. who cares about your blah'blah'blah interests? they only matter to your " self " . and there is no self. and that's just not generally speaking. figure it out. > > practically speaking it all depends on who's bullshit you buy. > > > > some few there are that have been chosen to not choose at all. > > > > those seem to just sit and do nothing like a mountainous lump of lead. > > > > but if you can escape Time's Domain but for one nanosecond of WORTH.. > > > > the pattern emerging in space and time through and throughout eons.. > > > > displays the non-textual prowess that it IS. > > > > nothing whatsoever matters. > > > > nothing whatsoever is replaceable. > > > > nothing whatsoever is other than anything or everything. > > > > nothing whatsoever is wasted or needed. > > > > nothing whatsoever can be said without lying immediately. > > F: everything matters, (.b.b.b.) wrong. F: > all is replaceable, (.b b.b.) wrong. F: >nothing is the absence of a thing (any or every), (.b b.b.) nothing is not even that. absence implies presence. neither has ultimate value. you are stuck in duality. to THAT there is neither presence nor absence. F: > everything is needed, and wasted....the word is the death of the thing (Hegel), (.b b.b.) there you go thinking that a dude named(in this case) Hegel.. was god. he was a philosopher wasting time. and from your science.. tell me of one thing wasted in the law of entropy? that law if you recall (or even if you don't) RULES the universe. death is just another name for change. change is inescapable and is how you even live a " life " . death may be a needed state but.. did you say " death " is a wasteful thing? how droll. without death..no life. check out your scientific comics. life can be so wasteful huh? death even more so i guess. LOL! F: i.e. quite > more than just a lie. Entering language we enter the realm of hungry spirits, of death. (.b b.b.) now i'm beginning to understand how you got your name fuzzy. you make too much of a thing out of death fuzzy wuzzy. " hungry spirits " ...roflmao! > > .b.b.b. > > > > > > p.s. > > > > it's late in the day.. > > > > now that it's existence is proven... > > > > do you know where your Unconscious is? > > > > whatever you do, it's already been decided.. > > > > and you've already set out to do that before you even know you have. > > > > zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ > > F: > ...entering language, the unconscious emerges. Well, if everything I do is already decided, > something, who took the decisions....if not the unconscious. > > > regards, > FuzzyL what makes you believe that a decision process is involved? is it because you think the ALL operates in your likeness? LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " p_croucher " <p_croucher wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Suppose you could only see when using > > a telescope, or a microscope. What world > > would you see, then? A world made of > > details, a very narrow world. Your world > > would be a world of remembered disconnected > > details that thought would knit together. > > > > This, of course, is a metaphor for our > > chronic inattentive blindness. It has > > been shown by experiments with drivers, > > that if distracted by a task, such as a > > conversation, a driver ignores (do not > > consciously sees) up to 40% of visual > > input. > > > > But wait a minute, aren't most people > > carrying a conversation with themselves, > > most of the time? How can they see the > > subtle tones and shades of the world > > while plagued by the inattention blindness > > produced by the chatter of their minds? > > > > Indeed, the devil is in the details, and is > > preventing us to notice the sacredness of > > the world. We need to relax the focus of > > the mind, to shut up, and see with panoramic > > eyes. Maybe then, the forest would emerge > > from behind the trees. > > > > Pete > > > > I know of one Zen teacher who speaks of the need for having " ten- > direction " eyes ... Which I take to be not dissimilar ... > > Many thanks for the post, Pete. yes thanks pete. but it was a little to full of details really. :-) ..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.