Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. who wrote the program? where is the perceptual input coming from without? > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > toombaru the befuddlement is in thinking that there is a " problem " . ALL is Perfect exactly as it IS and ONLY as it can BE. It's ALL imaginary. What an imagination! and you don't own it. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. toombaru --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > toombaru Namaste t, But is it not the ego, that distorted and subverted the reactive, defensive mechanism in the mind that creates the illusory programme and distorts it?....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. > > > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > Namaste t, > > But is it not the ego, that distorted and subverted the reactive, defensive mechanism in the mind that creates the illusory programme and distorts it?....Tony. No. It is not. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. > > > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > Namaste t, > > But is it not the ego, that distorted and subverted the reactive, defensive mechanism in the mind that creates the illusory programme and distorts it?....Tony. > The sense of being a separate self (ego) emerges at the center of the swirling mnemonic debris. It is the very dynamic that it is attempting to understand. The " problem " is that the conceptual overlay that causes the confusion is the only tool available that can be used in the attempt to unravel it. This is Nisargadatta's " washing blood with blood " idea. Any thing done to see it only adds to the confusion in that it assigns a pseudo-reality to the idea that there is something substantial " doing " the inquiry. It is looking for something that exists only as one one of its own ideas. (No wonder it's so hard.......LOL) Once that is seen......the focus seems to shift and the struggle to " get it " ....loses its personal focus. How's the journey going for your Tony? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. > > > > > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > > > > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > > > > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Namaste t, > > > > But is it not the ego, that distorted and subverted the reactive, defensive mechanism in the mind that creates the illusory programme and distorts it?....Tony. > > > > > The sense of being a separate self (ego) emerges at the center of the swirling mnemonic debris. > > It is the very dynamic that it is attempting to understand. > > The " problem " is that the conceptual overlay that causes the confusion is the only tool available that can be used in the attempt to unravel it. > > This is Nisargadatta's " washing blood with blood " idea. > > Any thing done to see it only adds to the confusion in that it assigns a pseudo-reality to the idea that there is something substantial " doing " the inquiry. > > > It is looking for something that exists only as one one of its own ideas. > > (No wonder it's so hard.......LOL) > > Once that is seen......the focus seems to shift and the struggle to " get it " ....loses its personal focus. > > > > How's the journey going for your Tony? > > > > > toombaru No. It is not. :-) ..b b.b. p.s. what's a journey called when no one is on one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. > > > > > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > > > > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > > > > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Namaste t, > > > > But is it not the ego, that distorted and subverted the reactive, defensive mechanism in the mind that creates the illusory programme and distorts it?....Tony. > > > > > The sense of being a separate self (ego) emerges at the center of the swirling mnemonic debris. > > It is the very dynamic that it is attempting to understand. > > The " problem " is that the conceptual overlay that causes the confusion is the only tool available that can be used in the attempt to unravel it. > > This is Nisargadatta's " washing blood with blood " idea. > > Any thing done to see it only adds to the confusion in that it assigns a pseudo-reality to the idea that there is something substantial " doing " the inquiry. > > > It is looking for something that exists only as one one of its own ideas. > > (No wonder it's so hard.......LOL) > > Once that is seen......the focus seems to shift and the struggle to " get it " ....loses its personal focus. > > > toombaru Hi Toomb! I've been recently posting a bit here and there to some of the old lists, and haven't seen you anywhere. So I'm delighted to find you here. Regarding your comments above, I can only give my own personal perspective... It seems to me that " looking " (attempting to see " how things are " ) is inherently problematic because seeing is by nature dual. Any such " looking " will necessarily (seems to me) have a subject/object distinction built in. Feeling, on the other hand, is a bit different. Feeling can be " oceanic " or unbounded, and need not be focused on any entity. Such unboundedness , at the very least, seems prerequisite for any fundamental transformation in that nature of experience. So, for example, if some " distubing feelings " come up, it has become my reflex to simply allow a dissolving into the complicated mess as it is. Without fail, it seems, any sense of conflict melts in this process. [Note: this might not be " instantaneous " ... a snap-of-the-fingers as it were. Indeed, it may be quite arduous in cases. But it is not complicated. The path is quite direct.] Anyway, the above is what came to mind on reading your post. It can be view as a brief chapter of my psychological history, if nothing else. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. > > > > > > > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > > > > > > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > > > > > > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Namaste t, > > > > > > But is it not the ego, that distorted and subverted the reactive, defensive mechanism in the mind that creates the illusory programme and distorts it?....Tony. > > > > > > > > > The sense of being a separate self (ego) emerges at the center of the swirling mnemonic debris. > > > > It is the very dynamic that it is attempting to understand. > > > > The " problem " is that the conceptual overlay that causes the confusion is the only tool available that can be used in the attempt to unravel it. > > > > This is Nisargadatta's " washing blood with blood " idea. > > > > Any thing done to see it only adds to the confusion in that it assigns a pseudo-reality to the idea that there is something substantial " doing " the inquiry. > > > > > > It is looking for something that exists only as one one of its own ideas. > > > > (No wonder it's so hard.......LOL) > > > > Once that is seen......the focus seems to shift and the struggle to " get it " ....loses its personal focus. > > > > > > > > How's the journey going for your Tony? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > No. It is not. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > > p.s. > > what's a journey called when no one is on one? > a strange-loop of course. Howdy, Bob. Nice to see you here. How've you been? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. > > > > > > > > > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > > > > > > > > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > > > > > > > > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Namaste t, > > > > > > > > But is it not the ego, that distorted and subverted the reactive, defensive mechanism in the mind that creates the illusory programme and distorts it?....Tony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sense of being a separate self (ego) emerges at the center of the swirling mnemonic debris. > > > > > > It is the very dynamic that it is attempting to understand. > > > > > > The " problem " is that the conceptual overlay that causes the confusion is the only tool available that can be used in the attempt to unravel it. > > > > > > This is Nisargadatta's " washing blood with blood " idea. > > > > > > Any thing done to see it only adds to the confusion in that it assigns a pseudo-reality to the idea that there is something substantial " doing " the inquiry. > > > > > > > > > It is looking for something that exists only as one one of its own ideas. > > > > > > (No wonder it's so hard.......LOL) > > > > > > Once that is seen......the focus seems to shift and the struggle to " get it " ....loses its personal focus. > > > > > > > > > > > > How's the journey going for your Tony? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > No. It is not. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > p.s. > > > > what's a journey called when no one is on one? > > > > a strange-loop of course. > > Howdy, Bob. > Nice to see you here. > How've you been? > > Bill I'm doing well, thanks Bill. How about you? Long time no " see " . :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I'm doing well, thanks Bill. How about you? Long time no " see " . :-) ..b b.b. .............. jez dandy, Bob. so what time is it where you are? here in CA it is now 5:35 AM. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > I'm doing well, thanks Bill. > > How about you? > > Long time no " see " . > > :-) > > .b b.b. > ............. > > jez dandy, Bob. > > so what time is it where you are? > here in CA it is now 5:35 AM. > > Bill 8:57 A.M. in South Western Ontario. timeless in Reality. much finer than sleepless in Seattle. :-) dodo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. who wrote the program? he said the program had " evolved " ... which gets him off the hook re any kind of doership. > > where is the perceptual input coming from without? here you have a point... which I might rephrase as: Where does within/without come into the picture? Modern evolutionary biology is fascinating in this regard. All the old boundaries are disso l v i n g > > > > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > the befuddlement is in thinking that there is a " problem " . > > ALL is Perfect exactly as it IS and ONLY as it can BE. The Great Stumbling Block. If someone considers that their life ain't so perfect, then " All is Perfect " may not go down so well. In my 3-D in-person encounters I sometimes address this by saying, " You have never done anything 'wrong'. There is no point in the past where you *should have done something differently*. Seems that is easier for some people to swallow. At least recently in conversation with one of the (mental health) clients at work I put it that way, and she was able to relate. But yeah, I ended with " All is perfect as it is, and always has been. " Maybe because I had offered the incentive of a Get Out Of Guilt Free! card, the broader assertion became easier to swallow? > > It's ALL imaginary. > > What an imagination! > > and you don't own it. anyway, I relate totally to what you are saying here about perfect, befuddlement, imaginary, etc. Do you end up getting regarded as a spouter of Crazy Wisdom? Or even as spouter of Craziness? Bill PS: On rereading before clicking Send I caught your at-first-missed subtle drift in: > It's ALL imaginary. > > What an imagination! A lot woven into (lying in wait) in that " What an imagination! " comment. Questions such as: OK, it's all imagination. Nothing " exists " because it is all imagination. But what about imagination itself? Is it fair to say that imagination exists? What's the *ontology* of this so-called imagination? [A question easily brushed aside by saying any such ontology is necessarily imaginary. Oh well...] And I'll throw in one of my own: Why call it imagination instead of simply phenomena? Isn't that more straight-forward? After all, the notion of phenomena doesn't necessarily entail any notion of an experiencer. In fact, on reflection even considering that: " what presents in consciousness " is __(your content here___.... UhOh! Stop right there, as the whole truckload of dubious notions gets slid in all too inconspicuously with that simple phrase: " what presents in consciousness " . It simply is not possible to do analysis for this slippery topic, as what-is-actual has no footholds and what-is-not-actual is so full of phoney footholds it is arguable that it is nothing BUT phoney footholds. So here we are just going BUZZ-BUZZ... UH-HUH... YEAH (with perhaps an optional for garnish)... because we cannot describe *at all*. But there is another alternative. We can just let it play out as it will... let the Lila of it have its way. And forget *explaining* altogether. Unless some sort of *apparent explaining* is what naturally unfolds in the Lila dance itself. And Oh Yeah! here we are with the re-entrance of Strange-Loopiness once again. So be it. Yeah, I think what we are reduced to: So Be It. Thanks, Bob, for the stimulating nugget-bits with which I have been able to enjoy this little Bead Game. The End > > .b b.b. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who wrote the program? > > he said the program had " evolved " ... which > gets him off the hook re any kind of doership. > > > > > where is the perceptual input coming from without? > > here you have a point... > which I might rephrase as: > > Where does within/without come into the picture? > > Modern evolutionary biology is fascinating in this > regard. > > All the old boundaries are disso l v > i > n > g > > > > > > > > > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > > > > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > > > > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > the befuddlement is in thinking that there is a " problem " . > > > > ALL is Perfect exactly as it IS and ONLY as it can BE. > > The Great Stumbling Block. If someone considers that their > life ain't so perfect, then " All is Perfect " may not go down > so well. > > In my 3-D in-person encounters I sometimes address this > by saying, " You have never done anything 'wrong'. There is > no point in the past where you *should have done something > differently*. Seems that is easier for some people to > swallow. At least recently in conversation with one of the > (mental health) clients at work I put it that way, and she > was able to relate. But yeah, I ended with " All is perfect > as it is, and always has been. " Maybe because I had offered > the incentive of a Get Out Of Guilt Free! card, the broader > assertion became easier to swallow? > > > > > > It's ALL imaginary. > > > > What an imagination! > > > > and you don't own it. > > anyway, I relate totally to what you are saying here > about perfect, befuddlement, imaginary, etc. > > Do you end up getting regarded as a spouter of > Crazy Wisdom? > > Or even as spouter of Craziness? > > Bill > > PS: On rereading before clicking Send I caught your > at-first-missed subtle drift in: > > It's ALL imaginary. > > > > What an imagination! > > A lot woven into (lying in wait) in that > " What an imagination! " comment. > > Questions such as: > OK, it's all imagination. Nothing " exists " because > it is all imagination. But what about imagination > itself? Is it fair to say that imagination exists? > > What's the *ontology* of this so-called imagination? > [A question easily brushed aside by saying any such > ontology is necessarily imaginary. Oh well...] > > And I'll throw in one of my own: > > Why call it imagination instead of simply phenomena? > Isn't that more straight-forward? After all, the notion of > phenomena doesn't necessarily entail any notion of an > experiencer. > > In fact, on reflection even considering that: " what presents > in consciousness " is __(your content here___.... UhOh! > Stop right there, as the whole truckload of > dubious notions gets slid in all too inconspicuously > with that simple phrase: " what presents in consciousness " . > > It simply is not possible to do analysis for this slippery > topic, as what-is-actual has no footholds and > what-is-not-actual is so full of phoney footholds it is > arguable that it is nothing BUT phoney footholds. > > So here we are just going BUZZ-BUZZ... UH-HUH... YEAH > (with perhaps an optional for garnish)... because > we cannot describe *at all*. > > But there is another alternative. We can just let it > play out as it will... let the Lila of it have its way. > And forget *explaining* altogether. Unless some sort > of *apparent explaining* is what naturally unfolds in > the Lila dance itself. And Oh Yeah! here we are with > the re-entrance of Strange-Loopiness once again. > > So be it. > > Yeah, I think what we are reduced to: > > So Be It. > > > Thanks, Bob, for the stimulating nugget-bits with which > I have been able to enjoy this little Bead Game. > > > The End > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. Das Glasperlenspiel! thanks for playing Mr. Hesse :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 > > > Hi Toomb! > > I've been recently posting a bit here and > there to some of the old lists, and haven't > seen you anywhere. So I'm delighted to find > you here. And I am delighted to see you. > > Regarding your comments above, I can only > give my own personal perspective... > > It seems to me that " looking " (attempting > to see " how things are " ) is inherently > problematic because seeing is by nature > dual. Any such " looking " will necessarily > (seems to me) have a subject/object distinction > built in. Yes. The " problem " seems to occur when the conceptual overlay is mistaken for the only reality by the assumption of self at the center of the swirling mnemonic debris. The whole illusion of separation and the resulting psychological fear and frustration occurs only on that level. The sense of self is the " suffering " or the " dream " . It appears that when mind assigns a name to all things some sort of feed-back-loop emerges with a phantom at the center. > > Feeling, on the other hand, is a bit different. > Feeling can be " oceanic " or unbounded, and > need not be focused on any entity. Such unboundedness > , at the very least, seems prerequisite for any > fundamental transformation in that nature of experience. Yes. Feelings are the universal solvent. We are all desperately searching so hard for what is always available for the asking. > > So, for example, if some " disturbing feelings " > come up, it has become my reflex to simply allow > a dissolving into the complicated mess as it is. > Without fail, it seems, any sense of conflict > melts in this process. [Note: this might not > be " instantaneous " ... a snap-of-the-fingers as > it were. Indeed, it may be quite arduous in cases. > But it is not complicated. The path is quite > direct.] It seems here when the understanding dawns that the " problem " arises only in the realm of ideas.......the entire structure collapses. The physical organism has " problems " to deal with such as keeping warm, appeasing hunger, that sexual thing....etc......but it is well equipped to deal with those. But the psychological organism has no idea how to deal with its imaginary dilemmas........since neither it nor its problems actually exist. The world of " duality " is the blending of these two organisms.....one substantial.......one imaginary. It all evolved beautifully because it works so well..........the down side occurs when the organism identifies primarily with the imaginary part of the equation. > > Anyway, the above is what came to mind on reading > your post. It can be view as a brief chapter of > my psychological history, if nothing else. > > Bill > Thanks Bill. Patrica moved to New Mexico. The day before she left.....we sat on a bench by the ocean. She had that little dog on her lap. When she walked to her car.......the wind played a song in her hair. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > I'm doing well, thanks Bill. > > How about you? > > Long time no " see " . > > :-) > > .b b.b. > ............. > > jez dandy, Bob. > > so what time is it where you are? > here in CA it is now 5:35 AM. > > Bill > No......it's 10:59 in California. Oh wait a minute.........it's 10:60 no...........that's not right....... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The conceptual mind is a program which evolved to look for patterns within its perceptual input. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who wrote the program? > > he said the program had " evolved " ... which > gets him off the hook re any kind of doership. > > > > > where is the perceptual input coming from without? > > here you have a point... > which I might rephrase as: > > Where does within/without come into the picture? > > Modern evolutionary biology is fascinating in this > regard. > > All the old boundaries are disso l v > i > n > g > > > > > > > > > > It can forecast when to plant crops or when the animals will return to its territory. > > > > > > The problem occurs when it attempts to extend this ability into its imaginary spiritual realm. > > > > > > The result of which is complete and total befuddlement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > the befuddlement is in thinking that there is a " problem " . > > > > ALL is Perfect exactly as it IS and ONLY as it can BE. > > The Great Stumbling Block. If someone considers that their > life ain't so perfect, then " All is Perfect " may not go down > so well. > > In my 3-D in-person encounters I sometimes address this > by saying, " You have never done anything 'wrong'. There is > no point in the past where you *should have done something > differently*. Seems that is easier for some people to > swallow. At least recently in conversation with one of the > (mental health) clients at work I put it that way, and she > was able to relate. But yeah, I ended with " All is perfect > as it is, and always has been. " Maybe because I had offered > the incentive of a Get Out Of Guilt Free! card, the broader > assertion became easier to swallow? > > > > > > It's ALL imaginary. > > > > What an imagination! > > > > and you don't own it. > > anyway, I relate totally to what you are saying here > about perfect, befuddlement, imaginary, etc. > > Do you end up getting regarded as a spouter of > Crazy Wisdom? > > Or even as spouter of Craziness? > > Bill > > PS: On rereading before clicking Send I caught your > at-first-missed subtle drift in: > > It's ALL imaginary. > > > > What an imagination! > > A lot woven into (lying in wait) in that > " What an imagination! " comment. > > Questions such as: > OK, it's all imagination. Nothing " exists " because > it is all imagination. But what about imagination > itself? Is it fair to say that imagination exists? > > What's the *ontology* of this so-called imagination? > [A question easily brushed aside by saying any such > ontology is necessarily imaginary. Oh well...] > > And I'll throw in one of my own: > > Why call it imagination instead of simply phenomena? > Isn't that more straight-forward? After all, the notion of > phenomena doesn't necessarily entail any notion of an > experiencer. > > In fact, on reflection even considering that: " what presents > in consciousness " is __(your content here___.... UhOh! > Stop right there, as the whole truckload of > dubious notions gets slid in all too inconspicuously > with that simple phrase: " what presents in consciousness " . > > It simply is not possible to do analysis for this slippery > topic, as what-is-actual has no footholds and > what-is-not-actual is so full of phoney footholds it is > arguable that it is nothing BUT phoney footholds. > > So here we are just going BUZZ-BUZZ... UH-HUH... YEAH > (with perhaps an optional for garnish)... because > we cannot describe *at all*. > > But there is another alternative. We can just let it > play out as it will... let the Lila of it have its way. > And forget *explaining* altogether. Unless some sort > of *apparent explaining* is what naturally unfolds in > the Lila dance itself. And Oh Yeah! here we are with > the re-entrance of Strange-Loopiness once again. > > So be it. > > Yeah, I think what we are reduced to: > > So Be It. > > > Thanks, Bob, for the stimulating nugget-bits with which > I have been able to enjoy this little Bead Game. > > > The End > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > Trout slip through the thought stream.......currents merge...... The river falls toward the ocean. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Wonderfully lucid, what you have to say here Toomb. <snip> > > Regarding your comments above, I can only > give my own personal perspective... > > It seems to me that " looking " (attempting > to see " how things are " ) is inherently > problematic because seeing is by nature > dual. Any such " looking " will necessarily > (seems to me) have a subject/object distinction > built in. Yes. The " problem " seems to occur when the conceptual overlay is mistaken for the only reality by the assumption of self at the center of the swirling mnemonic debris. The whole illusion of separation and the resulting psychological fear and frustration occurs only on that level. yes, " only on that level " , as if a single blind spot. The sense of self is the " suffering " or the " dream " . It appears that when mind assigns a name to all things some sort of feed-back-loop emerges with a phantom at the center. seems to me it begins just before assignment of a name, when there is contemplation of " experience as such " ... the moment a circle is drawn around " this experience " a separation has already occurred. But it is not even the separation itself that is the suffering, it is the *loss* of the undefinable edgelessness of the moment. This, seems to me, is precisely the Buddhist notion of grasping. > > Feeling, on the other hand, is a bit different. > Feeling can be " oceanic " or unbounded, and > need not be focused on any entity. Such unboundedness > , at the very least, seems prerequisite for any > fundamental transformation in that nature of experience. Yes. Feelings are the universal solvent. We are all desperately searching so hard for what is always available for the asking. beautiful! > > So, for example, if some " disturbing feelings " > come up, it has become my reflex to simply allow > a dissolving into the complicated mess as it is. > Without fail, it seems, any sense of conflict > melts in this process. [Note: this might not > be " instantaneous " ... a snap-of-the-fingers as > it were. Indeed, it may be quite arduous in cases. > But it is not complicated. The path is quite > direct.] It seems here when the understanding dawns that the " problem " arises only in the realm of ideas.......the entire structure collapses. The physical organism has " problems " to deal with such as keeping warm, appeasing hunger, that sexual thing....etc......but it is well equipped to deal with those. nicely put But the psychological organism has no idea how to deal with its imaginary dilemmas........since neither it nor its problems actually exist. The world of " duality " is the blending of these two organisms.....one substantial.......one imaginary. It all evolved beautifully because it works so well..........the down side occurs when the organism identifies primarily with the imaginary part of the equation. yes, though as I say above, I see the seed of suffering in a step just before that, in contemplation of experience-as-such. At that stage identification has not explicitly occurred... it is just the conscious " taking in " of *this experience*. As innocent as that may seem, it is a kind of death, because the fresh uncertainty of the moment is cleaved from. > > Anyway, the above is what came to mind on reading > your post. It can be view as a brief chapter of > my psychological history, if nothing else. > > Bill > Thanks Bill. Patrica moved to New Mexico. The day before she left.....we sat on a bench by the ocean. She had that little dog on her lap. When she walked to her car.......the wind played a song in her hair. your words here, as I read them, reflect sorrow and beauty, exquisitely woven. is it not a wonder that in a single moment of our soul touching another great soul such a vastness of Love is opened to us? That day we met for coffee was like that for me. I wrote to her just last night and said that I felt a touch of sadness that she seems so far, and yet I also know there is no distance. And I told her that I love her. Bill toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Wonderfully lucid, what you have to say > here Toomb. > > <snip> > > > > Regarding your comments above, I can only > > give my own personal perspective... > > > > It seems to me that " looking " (attempting > > to see " how things are " ) is inherently > > problematic because seeing is by nature > > dual. Any such " looking " will necessarily > > (seems to me) have a subject/object distinction > > built in. > > > Yes. > > The " problem " seems to occur when the conceptual overlay is mistaken for the > only reality by the assumption of self at the center of the swirling mnemonic > debris. > > The whole illusion of separation and the resulting psychological fear and > frustration occurs only on that level. > > yes, " only on that level " , as if a single blind spot. > > The sense of self is the " suffering " or the " dream " . > > It appears that when mind assigns a name to all things some sort of > feed-back-loop emerges with a phantom at the center. > > seems to me it begins just before assignment of a name, > when there is contemplation of " experience as such " ... > the moment a circle is drawn around " this experience " > a separation has already occurred. In regards to experience within to the physical-substantial realm there is an " animal memory " associated with the perception and relationship of observed-named objects that fall under the purview of the five senses. One can remember that fire burns and that snow is cold. Concerning the realm labeled by mind that has no physical counterpart.....e.g. love, God, enlightenment etc.......I am wondering if the mind can file an experience away in its mnemonic archives unless it is formatted in a conceptual context. When the mind names the perspective of those observation that have no physical counterpart everything gets a bit hazy and identification with the nebulous-imaginary creates a pseudo reality that blends the two worlds. The pseudo reality exists only in a conceptual-named context as does the phantom at its psychological center. But it is not even > the separation itself that is the suffering, it is > the *loss* of the undefinable edgelessness of the > moment. This, seems to me, is precisely the > Buddhist notion of grasping. Here the " grasping " ....the " hungry ghost syndrome " is seen as simply the way the machinery of self evolved. It is a searcher, not a finder. It doesn't function to be happy......it evolved to look for happiness. Evolution is impersonal and the " suffering " is there simply because it helps the organism survive and reproduce. What we call " enlightenment " is simply a breakdown of the identification process. The self loses its opacity and the mind is no longer limited to its accumulation of labels. The scale tips and a familiar, natural openness spreads out to embrace the perceptual input. > > > > > Feeling, on the other hand, is a bit different. > > Feeling can be " oceanic " or unbounded, and > > need not be focused on any entity. Such unboundedness > > , at the very least, seems prerequisite for any > > fundamental transformation in that nature of experience. > > Yes. > > Feelings are the universal solvent. > > We are all desperately searching so hard for what is always available for the > asking. > > beautiful! > > > > > So, for example, if some " disturbing feelings " > > come up, it has become my reflex to simply allow > > a dissolving into the complicated mess as it is. > > Without fail, it seems, any sense of conflict > > melts in this process. [Note: this might not > > be " instantaneous " ... a snap-of-the-fingers as > > it were. Indeed, it may be quite arduous in cases. > > But it is not complicated. The path is quite > > direct.] > > > It seems here when the understanding dawns that the " problem " arises only in the > realm of ideas.......the entire structure collapses. > > The physical organism has " problems " to deal with such as keeping warm, > appeasing hunger, that sexual thing....etc......but it is well equipped to deal > with those. > > nicely put > > But the psychological organism has no idea how to deal with its imaginary > dilemmas........since neither it nor its problems actually exist. > > The world of " duality " is the blending of these two organisms.....one > substantial.......one imaginary. > > It all evolved beautifully because it works so well..........the down side > occurs when the organism identifies primarily with the imaginary part of the > equation. > > yes, though as I say above, I see the seed of suffering > in a step just before that, in contemplation of > experience-as-such. At that stage identification > has not explicitly occurred... it is just the > conscious " taking in " of *this experience*. > As innocent as that may seem, it is a kind of death, > because the fresh uncertainty of the moment is cleaved > from. Yes. Straight up reality can be terrifying to the sense of self. It appears to have evolved because of its fear-based format. Once it is seen for what it is and what it isn't, it becomes vaporous and relatively insignificant......as do what had been perceived as the self of others. A certain impersonal fearlessness stand up in the flowing and looks out upon a pristine-unnamed wilderness..........and smiles. > > > > > Anyway, the above is what came to mind on reading > > your post. It can be view as a brief chapter of > > my psychological history, if nothing else. > > > > Bill > > > > Thanks Bill. > > > > Patrica moved to New Mexico. > > The day before she left.....we sat on a bench by the ocean. > > She had that little dog on her lap. > > When she walked to her car.......the wind played a song in her hair. > > > your words here, as I read them, > reflect sorrow and beauty, exquisitely > woven. Yes. I miss her........but not really. There is a constant parade of new faces to fall in love with. :-) > > is it not a wonder that in a single > moment of our soul touching another > great soul such a vastness of Love is > opened to us? That day we met for > coffee was like that for me. Yes.......me too. I have touched it with a few of my teachers.......a few of my acquaintances......a few of my hospice clients. .......but now....it is becoming who I am. > > I wrote to her just last night and > said that I felt a touch of sadness > that she seems so far, and yet I also > know there is no distance. And I told > her that I love her. > > Bill > > > > toombaru > I told her that once..........I looked up......and she was smiling. Love toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 I reply only to this one part of your eloquent message as I find it especially beautiful... > yes, though as I say above, I see the seed of suffering > in a step just before that, in contemplation of > experience-as-such. At that stage identification > has not explicitly occurred... it is just the > conscious " taking in " of *this experience*. > As innocent as that may seem, it is a kind of death, > because the fresh uncertainty of the moment is cleaved > from. Yes. Straight up reality can be terrifying to the sense of self. It appears to have evolved because of its fear-based format. I can't speak to the part about " terrifying to the sense of self " ... Back in my early twenties I was visiting some friends who had just come back from Mexico. They had visited an Indian village and had taken magic mushrooms there. One of them spoke in glowing terms of what she describe as " losing her ego. " At the time I was perplexed as I had no idea what she meant by ego. Now many decades later I have no idea what " sense of self " means. I can vaguely recall perhaps times where the term would apply. It is not that I have always been " egoless " , " selfless " , or such. I've had my share of hangups over the years. But even in such times of trial I wonder if " sense of self " would have resonated for me. For example, a few months ago I became angry with a fellow staff member when I discovered what she had been saying about me behind my back. Technically one could argue that being angry, especially in relation to a " personal affront " such as that, necessarily entails a sense of self. But I don't that there was any such " sense of self " for me experientially. I stayed angry about it into the next day, which is very unusual for me, when I reflected that being angry was just a toxification of my own system, and for what? Then that same day a friend asked the probing question, " What would I have her be? " His question prompted me to visualize her as a very radiant being, whereupon whatever heaviness I had felt in connection with her vanished. And, interestingly, my relationship with her has become quite positive to where I actually enjoy the times I see her, remarkable given that for years it was quite the contrary. So I wonder if the term " sense of self " is intended to mean literally a " sensation of self " or if is just a general term. I don't know if it is truly different for me (others have this " sense of self " and I don't, that I know of) or if others are using the term very loosely, that even for them there is no literal sensation that is that of " self " . I'm inclined to believe the latter, but I simply do not know. Once it is seen for what it is and what it isn't, it becomes vaporous and relatively insignificant......as do what had been perceived as the self of others. This part makes more sense to me... a kind of " snapping out of it " it would seem. But transformation like that for me haven't really been about a concept. I remember, after the last really deep spiritual transformation for me some years ago, that on the next day I sensed something was very different. On reflection I realized that a certain sense of " self-consciousness " was no longer with me. And perhaps, now that I write this, perhaps *this* is what you mean by " sense of self " . But for me it wasn't like a concept. The transformation the night before was profound and mystical. It had nothing to do with concepts. There was another key transformation in the next day or two that was perhaps conceptual, however. The notion of a " center within " had come into awareness, and the feeling of such a center within myself. Then, prompted by nothing in particular, I thought of the concept of axioms in mathematics, as for example the parallel hypothesis in geometry. For over two thousand years every believed that the parallel hypothesis was " reality " but then finally it came to be realized that it is an assumption. And it struck me that the notion of a center within could be such an assumption as well, that it seemed to be " there " only because it was assumed to be there. And in a flash, just as you describe above, it vaporized and effectively disappeared. And then, following upon that I realized that the assumption of an inside/outside was a consequence of the assumption of a center within and the sense of an inside vs. outside (of " me " ) vanished, which has never returned now some six years later. So this has been an interesting exploration for me. Even though I don't recall experiencing as " sense of self " I do recall experiencing a sense of " self-consciousness " (as for example when walking into a room and it feels like everyone's eyes are on you). And while that sense of " self- consciousness " didn't have the conceptual quality that you seem to refer to, the notion of a " center within " and of " inside/outside " did have such a conceptual sense. A certain impersonal fearlessness stand up in the flowing and looks out upon a pristine-unnamed wilderness..........and smiles. This line I found absolutely delightful. It is almost as if you have found words for Truth itself. I feel wonderfully nourished by the freshness and vitality of your words, Toomb. Even where I don't see quite that same, as above that becomes a seed for me to see some things never noticed before. Bill PS: Reading back over the above it occurs to me that there *is* a kind of " encapsulation of experience " that can happen in the present, but which is a kind of mesmerization where attention becomes fixed somehow on the " experience of experiencing " ... as if some kind of self-perpetuating feedback loop sets in. And the sense of " fixedness " in that could perhaps correspond to what you mean by " sense of self. " I wonder. It is not really a concept as I see it, but perhaps that is just point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > I reply only to this one part of your eloquent message > as I find it especially beautiful... > > > yes, though as I say above, I see the seed of suffering > > in a step just before that, in contemplation of > > experience-as-such. At that stage identification > > has not explicitly occurred... it is just the > > conscious " taking in " of *this experience*. > > As innocent as that may seem, it is a kind of death, > > because the fresh uncertainty of the moment is cleaved > > from. > > > Yes. > > Straight up reality can be terrifying to the sense of self. > It appears to have evolved because of its fear-based format. Following the old " qui bono " doctrine (who benefits) evolution blindly moves along. Nothing evolves in living organisms without it being a benefit to their survival quotient. The self is no exception. It, like all things, has a downside. And that is the " suffering " and fear that comes along with identification. > > I can't speak to the part about " terrifying to the sense of self " ... > Back in my early twenties I was visiting some friends who had just > come back from Mexico. They had visited an Indian village and had > taken magic mushrooms there. One of them spoke in glowing terms of > what she describe as " losing her ego. " At the time I was perplexed as > I had no idea what she meant by ego. Now many decades later I have no > idea what " sense of self " means. I can vaguely recall perhaps times > where the term would apply. It is not that I have always been > " egoless " , " selfless " , or such. I've had my share of hangups over the > years. But even in such times of trial I wonder if " sense of self " > would have resonated for me. For example, a few months ago I became > angry with a fellow staff member when I discovered what she had been > saying about me behind my back. Technically one could argue that > being angry, especially in relation to a " personal affront " such as > that, necessarily entails a sense of self. But I don't that there was > any such " sense of self " for me experientially. I stayed angry about > it into the next day, which is very unusual for me, when I reflected > that being angry was just a toxification of my own system, and for > what? Then that same day a friend asked the probing question, " What > would I have her be? " His question prompted me to visualize her as a > very radiant being, whereupon whatever heaviness I had felt in > connection with her vanished. And, interestingly, my relationship > with her has become quite positive to where I actually enjoy the > times I see her, remarkable given that for years it was quite the > contrary. > > So I wonder if the term " sense of self " is intended to mean literally > a " sensation of self " or if is just a general term. I don't know > if it is truly different for me (others have this " sense of self " > and I don't, that I know of) or if others are using the term very > loosely, that even for them there is no literal sensation that is > that of " self " . I'm inclined to believe the latter, but I simply > do not know. LOL Yes........because the one knowing is conjoined at the brain with the one known. As the nature of self is conceptual the sense of separation would have cover a vast spectrum experiential feedback. > > Once it is seen for what it is and what it isn't, it becomes vaporous and > relatively insignificant......as does what had been perceived as the self of > others. > > This part makes more sense to me... a kind of " snapping out of it " it > would seem. Yes......a moment of clear....non-conceptual lucidity. ....a standing up in the Flowing. But transformation like that for me haven't really been about > a concept. I remember, after the last really deep spiritual > transformation for me some years ago, that on the next day I sensed > something was very different. On reflection I realized that a certain > sense of " self-consciousness " was no longer with me. And perhaps, now > that I write this, perhaps *this* is what you mean by " sense of self " . > But for me it wasn't like a concept. The transformation the night before > was profound and mystical. It had nothing to do with concepts. > > There was another key transformation in the next day or two that was > perhaps conceptual, however. The notion of a " center within " had come > into awareness, and the feeling of such a center within myself. Then, > prompted by nothing in particular, I thought of the concept of axioms > in mathematics, as for example the parallel hypothesis in geometry. > For over two thousand years every believed that the parallel hypothesis > was " reality " but then finally it came to be realized that it is an > assumption. And it struck me that the notion of a center within could > be such an assumption as well, that it seemed to be " there " only because > it was assumed to be there. And in a flash, just as you describe above, > it vaporized and effectively disappeared. And then, following upon that > I realized that the assumption of an inside/outside was a consequence of > the assumption of a center within and the sense of an inside vs. outside > (of " me " ) vanished, which has never returned now some six years later. Beautiful. Beautiful. Here it is experienced as that which has always been has simply washed away that which was added conceptually. The conceptual overlay of the student fades and the original painting of the master shines through. > > So this has been an interesting exploration for me. And for me. Even though I don't > recall experiencing as " sense of self " I do recall experiencing a sense > of " self-consciousness " (as for example when walking into a room and it > feels like everyone's eyes are on you). And while that sense of " self- > consciousness " didn't have the conceptual quality that you seem to refer > to, the notion of a " center within " and of " inside/outside " did have such > a conceptual sense. > > > A certain impersonal fearlessness stands up in the Flowing and looks out upon a > pristine-unnamed wilderness..........and smiles. > > > This line I found absolutely delightful. It is almost as if you have > found words for Truth itself. > > > I feel wonderfully nourished by the freshness and vitality of your > words, Toomb. Even where I don't see quite that same, as above that > becomes a seed for me to see some things never noticed before. > > Bill When I was a child in Wyoming.......I would lay in the tall grass.....dangle my feet in the river....and watch the clouds. I feel like that talking to you.........but better. > > PS: Reading back over the above it occurs to me that there *is* a > kind of " encapsulation of experience " that can happen in the present, > but which is a kind of mesmerization where attention becomes fixed > somehow on the " experience of experiencing " ... as if some kind of > self-perpetuating feedback loop sets in. And the sense of " fixedness " > in that could perhaps correspond to what you mean by " sense of self. " > I wonder. It is not really a concept as I see it, but perhaps that is > just point of view. > Here it is as if the perceptual input folds back over itself and a conceptual-phantom emerges.......goose steps around the stage....points its little gun......and then evaporates....only to re-materialize....all the light of the ever present Awareness. I am so pleased that you are in my life. love toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 > I can't speak to the part about " terrifying to the sense of self " ... > Back in my early twenties I was visiting some friends who had just > come back from Mexico. They had visited an Indian village and had > taken magic mushrooms there. One of them spoke in glowing terms of > what she describe as " losing her ego. " At the time I was perplexed as > I had no idea what she meant by ego. Now many decades later I have no > idea what " sense of self " means. I can vaguely recall perhaps times > where the term would apply. It is not that I have always been > " egoless " , " selfless " , or such. I've had my share of hangups over the > years. But even in such times of trial I wonder if " sense of self " > would have resonated for me. For example, a few months ago I became > angry with a fellow staff member when I discovered what she had been > saying about me behind my back. Technically one could argue that > being angry, especially in relation to a " personal affront " such as > that, necessarily entails a sense of self. But I don't that there was > any such " sense of self " for me experientially. I stayed angry about > it into the next day, which is very unusual for me, when I reflected > that being angry was just a toxification of my own system, and for > what? Then that same day a friend asked the probing question, " What > would I have her be? " His question prompted me to visualize her as a > very radiant being, whereupon whatever heaviness I had felt in > connection with her vanished. And, interestingly, my relationship > with her has become quite positive to where I actually enjoy the > times I see her, remarkable given that for years it was quite the > contrary. > > So I wonder if the term " sense of self " is intended to mean literally > a " sensation of self " or if is just a general term. I don't know > if it is truly different for me (others have this " sense of self " > and I don't, that I know of) or if others are using the term very > loosely, that even for them there is no literal sensation that is > that of " self " . I'm inclined to believe the latter, but I simply > do not know. > > Once it is seen for what it is and what it isn't, it becomes vaporous and > relatively insignificant......as do what had been perceived as the self of > others. > > This part makes more sense to me... a kind of " snapping out of it " it > would seem. But transformation like that for me haven't really been about > a concept. I remember, after the last really deep spiritual > transformation for me some years ago, that on the next day I sensed > something was very different. On reflection I realized that a certain > sense of " self-consciousness " was no longer with me. And perhaps, now > that I write this, perhaps *this* is what you mean by " sense of self " . > But for me it wasn't like a concept. The transformation the night before > was profound and mystical. It had nothing to do with concepts. > > There was another key transformation in the next day or two that was > perhaps conceptual, however. The notion of a " center within " had come > into awareness, and the feeling of such a center within myself. Then, > prompted by nothing in particular, I thought of the concept of axioms > in mathematics, as for example the parallel hypothesis in geometry. > For over two thousand years every believed that the parallel hypothesis > was " reality " but then finally it came to be realized that it is an > assumption. And it struck me that the notion of a center within could > be such an assumption as well, that it seemed to be " there " only because > it was assumed to be there. And in a flash, just as you describe above, > it vaporized and effectively disappeared. And then, following upon that > I realized that the assumption of an inside/outside was a consequence of > the assumption of a center within and the sense of an inside vs. outside > (of " me " ) vanished, which has never returned now some six years later. > > So this has been an interesting exploration for me. Even though I don't > recall experiencing as " sense of self " I do recall experiencing a sense > of " self-consciousness " (as for example when walking into a room and it > feels like everyone's eyes are on you). And while that sense of " self- > consciousness " didn't have the conceptual quality that you seem to refer > to, the notion of a " center within " and of " inside/outside " did have such > a conceptual sense. > > > A certain impersonal fearlessness stand up in the flowing and looks out upon a > pristine-unnamed wilderness..........and smiles. > > > This line I found absolutely delightful. It is almost as if you have > found words for Truth itself. > > > I feel wonderfully nourished by the freshness and vitality of your > words, Toomb. Even where I don't see quite that same, as above that > becomes a seed for me to see some things never noticed before. > > Bill > > PS: Reading back over the above it occurs to me that there *is* a > kind of " encapsulation of experience " that can happen in the present, > but which is a kind of mesmerization where attention becomes fixed > somehow on the " experience of experiencing " ... as if some kind of > self-perpetuating feedback loop sets in. And the sense of " fixedness " > in that could perhaps correspond to what you mean by " sense of self. " > I wonder. It is not really a concept as I see it, but perhaps that is > just point of view. to establish if you have the same " sense of self " as any other... take a hammer.. swing it high.. smash your left big toe...HARD. see if " you " sense any pain. if you do.. chances are good that your " sense of self " is the same. maybe egolessly i dunno. but then..what about that " point of view " ? whose? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > I can't speak to the part about " terrifying to the sense of self " ... > > Back in my early twenties I was visiting some friends who had just > > come back from Mexico. They had visited an Indian village and had > > taken magic mushrooms there. One of them spoke in glowing terms of > > what she describe as " losing her ego. " At the time I was perplexed as > > I had no idea what she meant by ego. Now many decades later I have no > > idea what " sense of self " means. I can vaguely recall perhaps times > > where the term would apply. It is not that I have always been > > " egoless " , " selfless " , or such. I've had my share of hangups over the > > years. But even in such times of trial I wonder if " sense of self " > > would have resonated for me. For example, a few months ago I became > > angry with a fellow staff member when I discovered what she had been > > saying about me behind my back. Technically one could argue that > > being angry, especially in relation to a " personal affront " such as > > that, necessarily entails a sense of self. But I don't that there was > > any such " sense of self " for me experientially. I stayed angry about > > it into the next day, which is very unusual for me, when I reflected > > that being angry was just a toxification of my own system, and for > > what? Then that same day a friend asked the probing question, " What > > would I have her be? " His question prompted me to visualize her as a > > very radiant being, whereupon whatever heaviness I had felt in > > connection with her vanished. And, interestingly, my relationship > > with her has become quite positive to where I actually enjoy the > > times I see her, remarkable given that for years it was quite the > > contrary. > > > > So I wonder if the term " sense of self " is intended to mean literally > > a " sensation of self " or if is just a general term. I don't know > > if it is truly different for me (others have this " sense of self " > > and I don't, that I know of) or if others are using the term very > > loosely, that even for them there is no literal sensation that is > > that of " self " . I'm inclined to believe the latter, but I simply > > do not know. > > > > Once it is seen for what it is and what it isn't, it becomes vaporous and > > relatively insignificant......as do what had been perceived as the self of > > others. > > > > This part makes more sense to me... a kind of " snapping out of it " it > > would seem. But transformation like that for me haven't really been about > > a concept. I remember, after the last really deep spiritual > > transformation for me some years ago, that on the next day I sensed > > something was very different. On reflection I realized that a certain > > sense of " self-consciousness " was no longer with me. And perhaps, now > > that I write this, perhaps *this* is what you mean by " sense of self " . > > But for me it wasn't like a concept. The transformation the night before > > was profound and mystical. It had nothing to do with concepts. > > > > There was another key transformation in the next day or two that was > > perhaps conceptual, however. The notion of a " center within " had come > > into awareness, and the feeling of such a center within myself. Then, > > prompted by nothing in particular, I thought of the concept of axioms > > in mathematics, as for example the parallel hypothesis in geometry. > > For over two thousand years every believed that the parallel hypothesis > > was " reality " but then finally it came to be realized that it is an > > assumption. And it struck me that the notion of a center within could > > be such an assumption as well, that it seemed to be " there " only because > > it was assumed to be there. And in a flash, just as you describe above, > > it vaporized and effectively disappeared. And then, following upon that > > I realized that the assumption of an inside/outside was a consequence of > > the assumption of a center within and the sense of an inside vs. outside > > (of " me " ) vanished, which has never returned now some six years later. > > > > So this has been an interesting exploration for me. Even though I don't > > recall experiencing as " sense of self " I do recall experiencing a sense > > of " self-consciousness " (as for example when walking into a room and it > > feels like everyone's eyes are on you). And while that sense of " self- > > consciousness " didn't have the conceptual quality that you seem to refer > > to, the notion of a " center within " and of " inside/outside " did have such > > a conceptual sense. > > > > > > A certain impersonal fearlessness stand up in the flowing and looks out upon a > > pristine-unnamed wilderness..........and smiles. > > > > > > This line I found absolutely delightful. It is almost as if you have > > found words for Truth itself. > > > > > > I feel wonderfully nourished by the freshness and vitality of your > > words, Toomb. Even where I don't see quite that same, as above that > > becomes a seed for me to see some things never noticed before. > > > > Bill > > > > PS: Reading back over the above it occurs to me that there *is* a > > kind of " encapsulation of experience " that can happen in the present, > > but which is a kind of mesmerization where attention becomes fixed > > somehow on the " experience of experiencing " ... as if some kind of > > self-perpetuating feedback loop sets in. And the sense of " fixedness " > > in that could perhaps correspond to what you mean by " sense of self. " > > I wonder. It is not really a concept as I see it, but perhaps that is > > just point of view. > > > > to establish if you have the same " sense of self " as any other... > > take a hammer.. > > swing it high.. > > smash your left big toe...HARD. > > see if " you " sense any pain. > > if you do.. > > chances are good that your " sense of self " is the same. > > maybe egolessly i dunno. > > but then..what about that " point of view " ? > > whose? > > > .b b.b. > A hammer to the finger will make a chimpanzee cringe. An insult concerning his personal appearance will have little effect. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 <humongous snip> > > Bill > > > > PS: Reading back over the above it occurs to me that there *is* a > > kind of " encapsulation of experience " that can happen in the present, > > but which is a kind of mesmerization where attention becomes fixed > > somehow on the " experience of experiencing " ... as if some kind of > > self-perpetuating feedback loop sets in. And the sense of " fixedness " > > in that could perhaps correspond to what you mean by " sense of self. " > > I wonder. It is not really a concept as I see it, but perhaps that is > > just point of view. > > > > to establish if you have the same " sense of self " as any other... > > take a hammer.. > > swing it high.. > > smash your left big toe...HARD. > > see if " you " sense any pain. > > if you do.. > > chances are good that your " sense of self " is the same. > > maybe egolessly i dunno. > > but then..what about that " point of view " ? > > whose? Awww Bob, I would think you of all people would perhaps catch the salient notion in that PS.... > > > .b b.b. Well, to actually carry out such an experiment would likely entail some sort of " sense of self " . If you are trying to figure out who/what you are then surely there is some confusion going on in the area of reflexive processing. Seems to me that nondualism (Nisargadatta style anyway) is about progressively de-programming of absurd reflexive " lookups " . For example, if you wrote a computer function like this: def fn() { fn(); } you get an over-worked computer. As a software engineer you hopefully learn not to write stuff like that. Well, we are all of us software engineers of a sort, whether we like it or not. And when we do absurd reflexive stuff, like asking " Who am I? " or trying to be a certain particular sort of person, we put our bio-computing system into a tailspin. The result may be a headache, very low energy, etc. etc. aka the human condition. Regarding your toe smacking scenario, it reminded me of an incident a couple of months ago when: While slicing a loaf of bread I managed to whack the end of one of my thumbs nearly clean off. It went right through the nail, and only about a quarter of an inch of flesh remained connected. A lot of blood. I had no bandages so had to tear a sheet up into strips to wind it, then drive myself half an hour to an emergency room. You don't know how you are going to react in such a situation until it happens, and it was very interesting to observed that there was no emotion about it at all. It was all very matter-of-fact. Most fascinating in the whole thing was meeting a guy in the waiting room that was full of enjoy and happily engaging everyone around him, including me. He had had a stroke and the left side of his body wss paralyzed. He spoke of it openly and matter of factly. He said how because it was on his left side he had no problem driving, and the way he put it was if to say, " so therefore not a big deal. " When the nurse called him he got up and marched off dragging his left leg behind him. What a beautiful guy! On the other hand, a few weeks ago I got very nervous when I coun't find a certain important document. So I'm not saying I am immune etc. But I saw that as simply a mechanism kicking in, and it was a metter of observing the bodily sensations etc. to " debug it. " I don't see where a " sense of self " comes into it at all. Yet I am sure some folks here will declare with knee-jerk reflex that if there is anxiety, fear, or such then *definitely* there is as sense of " phantom self " or whatever cropping up. Perhaps it is those folks' mechanism about " sense of self " that is habitually firing off. Perhaps they might want to do some debugging of their own. Aren't *automatic* patterns like that by definition lacking in requisite variety, lacking in complex response capabilities? Whatever is going on, any time, any day, any where, it is certainly going on in a programming environment. We are all software engineers, whether we like it or not. The only difference is that those who insist on seeing themselves in terms of the old " human being model " are doomed to being very lousy software engineers. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > I can't speak to the part about " terrifying to the sense of self " ... > > > Back in my early twenties I was visiting some friends who had just > > > come back from Mexico. They had visited an Indian village and had > > > taken magic mushrooms there. One of them spoke in glowing terms of > > > what she describe as " losing her ego. " At the time I was perplexed as > > > I had no idea what she meant by ego. Now many decades later I have no > > > idea what " sense of self " means. I can vaguely recall perhaps times > > > where the term would apply. It is not that I have always been > > > " egoless " , " selfless " , or such. I've had my share of hangups over the > > > years. But even in such times of trial I wonder if " sense of self " > > > would have resonated for me. For example, a few months ago I became > > > angry with a fellow staff member when I discovered what she had been > > > saying about me behind my back. Technically one could argue that > > > being angry, especially in relation to a " personal affront " such as > > > that, necessarily entails a sense of self. But I don't that there was > > > any such " sense of self " for me experientially. I stayed angry about > > > it into the next day, which is very unusual for me, when I reflected > > > that being angry was just a toxification of my own system, and for > > > what? Then that same day a friend asked the probing question, " What > > > would I have her be? " His question prompted me to visualize her as a > > > very radiant being, whereupon whatever heaviness I had felt in > > > connection with her vanished. And, interestingly, my relationship > > > with her has become quite positive to where I actually enjoy the > > > times I see her, remarkable given that for years it was quite the > > > contrary. > > > > > > So I wonder if the term " sense of self " is intended to mean literally > > > a " sensation of self " or if is just a general term. I don't know > > > if it is truly different for me (others have this " sense of self " > > > and I don't, that I know of) or if others are using the term very > > > loosely, that even for them there is no literal sensation that is > > > that of " self " . I'm inclined to believe the latter, but I simply > > > do not know. > > > > > > Once it is seen for what it is and what it isn't, it becomes vaporous and > > > relatively insignificant......as do what had been perceived as the self of > > > others. > > > > > > This part makes more sense to me... a kind of " snapping out of it " it > > > would seem. But transformation like that for me haven't really been about > > > a concept. I remember, after the last really deep spiritual > > > transformation for me some years ago, that on the next day I sensed > > > something was very different. On reflection I realized that a certain > > > sense of " self-consciousness " was no longer with me. And perhaps, now > > > that I write this, perhaps *this* is what you mean by " sense of self " . > > > But for me it wasn't like a concept. The transformation the night before > > > was profound and mystical. It had nothing to do with concepts. > > > > > > There was another key transformation in the next day or two that was > > > perhaps conceptual, however. The notion of a " center within " had come > > > into awareness, and the feeling of such a center within myself. Then, > > > prompted by nothing in particular, I thought of the concept of axioms > > > in mathematics, as for example the parallel hypothesis in geometry. > > > For over two thousand years every believed that the parallel hypothesis > > > was " reality " but then finally it came to be realized that it is an > > > assumption. And it struck me that the notion of a center within could > > > be such an assumption as well, that it seemed to be " there " only because > > > it was assumed to be there. And in a flash, just as you describe above, > > > it vaporized and effectively disappeared. And then, following upon that > > > I realized that the assumption of an inside/outside was a consequence of > > > the assumption of a center within and the sense of an inside vs. outside > > > (of " me " ) vanished, which has never returned now some six years later. > > > > > > So this has been an interesting exploration for me. Even though I don't > > > recall experiencing as " sense of self " I do recall experiencing a sense > > > of " self-consciousness " (as for example when walking into a room and it > > > feels like everyone's eyes are on you). And while that sense of " self- > > > consciousness " didn't have the conceptual quality that you seem to refer > > > to, the notion of a " center within " and of " inside/outside " did have such > > > a conceptual sense. > > > > > > > > > A certain impersonal fearlessness stand up in the flowing and looks out upon a > > > pristine-unnamed wilderness..........and smiles. > > > > > > > > > This line I found absolutely delightful. It is almost as if you have > > > found words for Truth itself. > > > > > > > > > I feel wonderfully nourished by the freshness and vitality of your > > > words, Toomb. Even where I don't see quite that same, as above that > > > becomes a seed for me to see some things never noticed before. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > PS: Reading back over the above it occurs to me that there *is* a > > > kind of " encapsulation of experience " that can happen in the present, > > > but which is a kind of mesmerization where attention becomes fixed > > > somehow on the " experience of experiencing " ... as if some kind of > > > self-perpetuating feedback loop sets in. And the sense of " fixedness " > > > in that could perhaps correspond to what you mean by " sense of self. " > > > I wonder. It is not really a concept as I see it, but perhaps that is > > > just point of view. > > > > > > > > to establish if you have the same " sense of self " as any other... > > > > take a hammer.. > > > > swing it high.. > > > > smash your left big toe...HARD. > > > > see if " you " sense any pain. > > > > if you do.. > > > > chances are good that your " sense of self " is the same. > > > > maybe egolessly i dunno. > > > > but then..what about that " point of view " ? > > > > whose? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > A hammer to the finger will make a chimpanzee cringe. > > An insult concerning his personal appearance will have little effect. > > > > > > toombaru i disagree. you just don't speak their language. ..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.