Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 > > How strange is this. It is almost as if this localized being, its life, > its > battles, its sorrows, happiness, dramas where created with only one goal > in > " mind " : to be transcended. Each one of us seems to have received his > correct > lot. And then " life " gains a different purpose - yes purpose: must be > defeated, seen through. The nature of the battles change... but at this > present date I dont think the war is ever over. The war is over now. Here and now, sitting in front of the computer reading these words, what is 'this localized being' at war with? Is attention on some active 'background war' as these words are seen, one at a time? Or is that war actually in memory, part of the past, and perhaps an expected part of the future? This moment, as the eyes scan this: 0 0 0 what 0 0 0 0 0 is the entity 0 0 0 0 0 at war 0 0 with? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. geo>Imagine you are at the eye of a hurricane force 10 (much higher then the 5). Except this hurricane's eye is three feet wide. If you stick your arms out, you are taken. Any careless movement, you are taken. Now change the situation. There is no entity standing in the eye of the huricane, it is an organism. To be taken by the winds is to be an entity. This is a song I have just writen. Heavy rock stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Sunday, May 24, 2009 7:32 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Geo - > > > > I don't believe in any inner self. > > > > Let alone thinking that an inner self would be necessary to recognize a > > street name. > > > > You seem to have misinterpreted things I've said. > > > > Look, let's communicate now. > > > > Not based on the past, just starting fresh. > > > > Yes, you need to go to work on time if you want to get paid. > > > > What I've been saying is that time is constructed by thought, and > > thought is > > constructed using time. > > > > It's a paradox, if one notices it. > > > > One comes to paradox, if one is clear on the paradox, linear thought is > > not > > held onto, one now is awareness independent of thought. > > > > Not the word or thought of awareness. Not depending on thought. > > > > Because awareness isn't the word, sometimes I've used the word > > 'nothing.' > > Nothing meaning that no meaning or quality can be attributed to who one > > is. > > > > Thought arranges to go to work. Thought conceptualizes the time one > > needs to > > be at work by using a clock. > > > > You don't need to have a psychological center to think. > > > > Thought can occur thoughtlessly, no center is necessarily implied. > > > > -- Dan > > > > ===== > > Well.... I was refering to this peace of conversaton here: > > geo> The recognition of a street, the ability to play some game, does > > not > > need to generate conflict. > > > > Dan:The conflict is there. > > > > It is time and death. > > > > The recognition of a street has meaning because it assists survival. > > > > Survival is the attempt to continue. > > > > Continuity is subject to time, limitation, violence, illness, aging, and > > death. > > Yes. I see your point. > > And I agree with you that recognizing a street sign doesn't need to > generate conflict, doesn't always generate conflict. > > It would have been more clear if I would have said, " Yes, it doesn't > necessarily have to generate conflict, yet typically, the conflict is > there. " > > Probably, due to posting quickly, I leave out sentences that could have > clarified my response better. > > What I was speaking to is that the conflict is there, generally, because > the recognition of the street sign is tied in to the sense of personal > survival, continuation of the self. > > It is possible to resolve the conflict. > > In which case, one is living paradox. > > Thoughts occur thoughtlessly. > > One is living through time, timelessly. > > One is using memory, and surviving while one does, but there is not > investment in personal continuity, not an anchoring of awareness in > personal continuity. > > Thanks for clarifying, > > Dan > The tension of life remains and the personal identification continues. The entity gets angry.......frightened.....protective of its kingdom.....fearful.....lust arises.....anxiety.....vanity....loneliness..... All of that is allowed to take its natural course and are seen as just the way the reactive machinery grinds along. But........the primary locus of attention is no longer centered in the physical apparatus. After the Understanding dawns.....I feels like one is Life itself experiencing itself through the temporary help of the identified entity. One becomes the entire gamut.......a delicious blend...flowing easily....(sometimes not so)........between the banks of the Micro and the Macro...... toombaru Could you elaborate further: " But........the primary locus of attention is no longer centered in the physical apparatus " I am looking at this tentatively...Before the understanding attention was focused in what? I think it was concerned with things flying in the winds..things that would suit favorably the imagined self. These things obviously existed in time...so conflict. Adn life/death, beguining/ending always in the background as an menace. This situation must reflect in the body/mind as psichosomatic missconections. Is it that conscern/attention looses its focuse and expands into an unspeakable dimension that changes fundamentaly perception. All is still there, but something is now as if fixed. Certainly those missconections will change....and that might take time by the watch...but the new pespective, this universal remedy must act.. Just another song. This one is Jazz. Oscar petterson and joe pass...and pederssen on bass. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 > Me also...sometimes when words seeem to flow most easily, when there is a > sense if " inspiration " ...it is when one must be more attent ..for those > are > the times when we tend to take one thing for another. > " Yes, it doesn't necessarily have to generate conflict, yet typically, the > conflict is there. " Yes conflict is there, but not because of the natural > intelligence of the organism that is amazingly beautifull... it is capable > of doing hundreds of little things correctly and simultaneusly. Conflict > is > there because typically man has an imagined inner fixed separate entity > called ME that is always insatisfactory, always in need to become > something > else, always in need to progress, need to improve, to change, all that of > course in time...etc..And we know all this. Seems so simple, yet... > -geo- Geo - Good point. Teachers generally point out to a group of people how they need to look at their me's. This is the job of a teacher, I suppose. geo> I think two persons might meet and might exchange something with each other. This teacher thing, as a " profession " - IMHO - most of the time is jsut more of the same...a trip. === However, it is misleading. Because one can't see another in one's view who has a me, without having a me to oneself. " It takes one to know one. " It takes a me to relate to a me, it takes a me to " call out " a me. geo> I see ithe opposite in this reagard. Only one without a me can point to another the mechanism that gives the illusion of such me. If the one pointing this out has a me...he is identified and is a sham. The role of a person in a position of teaching is correct attention...perhaps unfocusedly focused in the uncentered unspeakable dimension. == The only 'me' that really requires being addressed is the one here, now. Not 'out there' belonging to someone else. So, however great the teacher was at pointing out other people's me's, I now let go of that urge to tell someone else about his or her me. This is necessary at the point where only this 'me' here is involved in being understood, directly. geo> I dont like quoting but I will praphrase nis. " I am not talking to anyone in particular, I am talking to consciusness " . So being a teacher is not something that one chooses to be like a dentist or carpenter. It happens. IMO being in the right " space " , the timeless/unlimited/impersonal one is the most important issue for someone in the position of teaching. The words... and all the rest are just details. Being in the right space both things happen simultaneously: the understanding of the arising of the entity, the me.... and the the expansion of the focus of attention. I dont think it is possible to do just one or the other... ==== Here is where it gets interesting. One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an activity, an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It is not an actually existing thing, being, or center. Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function here as a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone " else. " It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will give away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not about how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to a person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in here/out there undivided. Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an attempt to hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are the unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives through time. One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a matter of time. And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and there is no 'me' center found anywhere. Not inside or outside. And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no division. -- Dan Yessso -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an activity, an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It is not an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function here as a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone " else. " It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will give away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not about how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to a person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in here/out there undivided. > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an attempt to hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are the unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives through time. > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a matter of time. > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and there is no 'me' center found anywhere. > > Not inside or outside. > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no division. > > -- Dan P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an activity, > an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It is not > an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function here as > a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone " else. " > It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will give > away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not about > how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to a > person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in here/out > there undivided. > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an attempt to > hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are the > unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives through > time. > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a matter > of time. > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and there is > no 'me' center found anywhere. > > Not inside or outside. > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no > division. > > -- Dan P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be understood as if asserting a universal awareness. geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an activity, > > an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It is not > > an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function here as > > a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone " else. " > > It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will give > > away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not about > > how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to a > > person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in here/out > > there undivided. > > > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an attempt to > > hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are the > > unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives through > > time. > > > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a matter > > of time. > > > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and there is > > no 'me' center found anywhere. > > > > Not inside or outside. > > > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no > > division. > > > > -- Dan > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > > geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? P: That awareness could exist without brains. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an activity, an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It is not an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function here as a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone " else. " It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will give away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not about how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to a person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in here/out there undivided. > > > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an attempt to hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are the unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives through time. > > > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a matter of time. > > > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and there is no 'me' center found anywhere. > > > > Not inside or outside. > > > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no division. > > > > -- Dan > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > > > Some thoughts: Awareness.....sentience.....is a biological function that evolves and becomes more sophisticated over time. From the bacteria that evolved the ability to sense the magnetic field of the earth and be pulled either North of South.....to the flatworm that can sense the presence of light. Life changes over time and adapts to survive. The enhanced ability to sense ones environment improves the chances to survive and reproduce...and those enhanced abilities are passed on to the offspring. Over eons awareness-consciousness has evolved the ability to conceptualize its perceptual input. This ability results in the formation of an imaginary psychological center. It has the ability to manipulate its physical environment and that inclines it to believe that it can control its pseudo-world.......the conceptual overlay in which it is immersed. It labels its sophisticated sentience " consciousness " and then tries to discover the nature of its own label. When the ruse is uncovered a profound change in perspective occurs. The psychological center is no longer perceived as the geocentric power broker but no becomes a bit player. All of the other characters are seen in the same light and a non-conceptual global awareness emerges......indifferent and yet fully involved in the drama of being. There are no consensus words for this perspective because it is centered everywhere. It is not returning to its former pre-conceptual reality. There was no such thing. It is the outer living edge of sentience-consciousness-awareness. It is the New Frontier. And that is as close to words can get to who you are. .......and my words just hit The Wall.... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > > > > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an activity, > > > an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It is not > > > an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > > > > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function here as > > > a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone " else. " > > > It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will give > > > away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not about > > > how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to a > > > person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > > > > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in here/out > > > there undivided. > > > > > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an attempt to > > > hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are the > > > unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives through > > > time. > > > > > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a matter > > > of time. > > > > > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and there is > > > no 'me' center found anywhere. > > > > > > Not inside or outside. > > > > > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no > > > division. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > > > > geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? > > P: That awareness could exist without brains. > > > No. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > > > > > > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an activity, > > > > an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It is not > > > > an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > > > > > > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function here as > > > > a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone " else. " > > > > It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will give > > > > away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not about > > > > how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to a > > > > person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > > > > > > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in here/out > > > > there undivided. > > > > > > > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an attempt to > > > > hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are the > > > > unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives through > > > > time. > > > > > > > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a matter > > > > of time. > > > > > > > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and there is > > > > no 'me' center found anywhere. > > > > > > > > Not inside or outside. > > > > > > > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no > > > > division. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > > > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > > > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > > > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > > > > > > geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? > > > > P: That awareness could exist without brains. > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > toombaru neither no nor not no, no? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 > > > > > > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > > > > > > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an > > > > activity, > > > > an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It > > > > is not > > > > an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > > > > > > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function > > > > here as > > > > a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone > > > > " else. " > > > > It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will > > > > give > > > > away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not > > > > about > > > > how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to > > > > a > > > > person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > > > > > > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in > > > > here/out > > > > there undivided. > > > > > > > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an > > > > attempt to > > > > hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are > > > > the > > > > unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives > > > > through > > > > time. > > > > > > > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a > > > > matter > > > > of time. > > > > > > > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and > > > > there is > > > > no 'me' center found anywhere. > > > > > > > > Not inside or outside. > > > > > > > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no > > > > division. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > > > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > > > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > > > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > > > > > > geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? > > > > P: That awareness could exist without brains. > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > toombaru neither no nor not no, no? ..b b.b. Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > -geo- " A brain " is a thought in the mind. The brain is irrelevant to everyday life, unless perhaps getting brain surgery ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > > > > > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > > > > > > > > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an > > > > > activity, > > > > > an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It > > > > > is not > > > > > an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > > > > > > > > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function > > > > > here as > > > > > a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone > > > > > " else. " > > > > > It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will > > > > > give > > > > > away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not > > > > > about > > > > > how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to > > > > > a > > > > > person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > > > > > > > > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in > > > > > here/out > > > > > there undivided. > > > > > > > > > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an > > > > > attempt to > > > > > hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are > > > > > the > > > > > unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives > > > > > through > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a > > > > > matter > > > > > of time. > > > > > > > > > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and > > > > > there is > > > > > no 'me' center found anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > Not inside or outside. > > > > > > > > > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no > > > > > division. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > > > > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > > > > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > > > > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > > > > > > > > geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? > > > > > > P: That awareness could exist without brains. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > neither no nor not no, no? > > .b b.b. > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > -geo- > No. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > -geo- > > " A brain " is a thought in the mind. The brain is irrelevant to everyday life, unless perhaps getting brain surgery ;-). Try living without your brain. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > > -geo- > > > > " A brain " is a thought in the mind. The brain is irrelevant to everyday life, unless perhaps getting brain surgery ;-). Try living without your brain. > > > > toombaru I do. No thought of " my brain " ever arises. Try living without the " me " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > > -geo- > > > > " A brain " is a thought in the mind. The brain is irrelevant to everyday life, unless perhaps getting brain surgery ;-). Try living without your brain. > > > > toombaru I do. No thought of " my brain " ever arises. Try living without the " me " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Monday, May 25, 2009 3:13 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > -geo- > > " A brain " is a thought in the mind. The brain is irrelevant to everyday > life, unless perhaps getting brain surgery ;-). Try living without your brain. toombaru In deep sleep the universe is gone? How then can it reapear? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. D: With words, it always sounds like something is being asserted. And yet, for all my words, nothing has ever been asserted. Awareness can't be asserted. It is. But concepts about awareness can appear to be asserted. So, words can go back and forth about which conceptualization of awareness is correct. And awareness isn't touched by the debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? > > P: That awareness could exist without brains. Who was I before a brain was constructed? Without any word " I, " any location, or any memory stored? What is this no-thing which is more who I am than " I " or " brain " ? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > -geo- > > > > No. > > toombaru > > Dear forum members...you may write...but not loudly please..our friend > toomba needs some sleep. ...ssssssssshhh. > Just because you dont know what you where before being born means nothing as > a ground was? > Is that which you where before being born gone now?? > ssssssshhh... > -geo- > Where did you get the idea that you were something before you were born? Do you imagine that it came from the same place that the idea that you will live after you die? I have some news: The you that you think you are......never was born.......but it will die. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 25, 2009 3:13 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > > -geo- > > > > " A brain " is a thought in the mind. The brain is irrelevant to everyday > > life, unless perhaps getting brain surgery ;-). > > Try living without your brain. > > toombaru > > In deep sleep the universe is gone? How then can it reapear? > -geo- > It reappears within the conceptual-mnemonic machinery. ....all of which occurs within the mass of jelly in your head that you call " my brain " . toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Some thoughts: > > > Awareness.....sentience.....is a biological function that evolves and becomes more sophisticated over time. > > From the bacteria that evolved the ability to sense the magnetic field of the earth and be pulled either North of South.....to the flatworm that can sense the presence of light. > > Life changes over time and adapts to survive. > > The enhanced ability to sense ones environment improves the chances to survive and reproduce...and those enhanced abilities are passed on to the offspring. > > Over eons awareness-consciousness has evolved the ability to conceptualize its perceptual input. > > This ability results in the formation of an imaginary psychological center. > > It has the ability to manipulate its physical environment and that inclines it to believe that it can control its pseudo-world.......the conceptual overlay in which it is immersed. > > It labels its sophisticated sentience " consciousness " and then tries to discover the nature of its own label. > > When the ruse is uncovered a profound change in perspective occurs. > > The psychological center is no longer perceived as the geocentric power broker but no becomes a bit player. > > All of the other characters are seen in the same light and a non-conceptual global awareness emerges......indifferent and yet fully involved in the drama of being. > > There are no consensus words for this perspective because it is centered everywhere. > > It is not returning to its former pre-conceptual reality. > There was no such thing. > > It is the outer living edge of sentience-consciousness-awareness. > > It is the New Frontier. > > And that is as close to words can get to who you are. > > ......and my words just hit The Wall.... > > > > > > toombaru Awareness is now. It did not begin. What you are talking about is an evolving biologically based consciousness. You need to be able to form perceptions to conceive of such a thing. You have to have constructed time for such constructs to be viable. One can look deeply into time construction and understand that one is forming this construction, this template. One can be aware that the biological organism is a construct the requires time, that has a limited life that begins and ends. One can be aware without dependence on any constructed form. This awareness has no name. It is not the concept of awareness. It is not even nothing. But one now understands that awareness is not being produced by biological organisms. Biological organisms are constructs through awareness. One rests timelessly. The sabbath moment. Nothing to invest in. Not biology, not location, not any quality. Not even awareness. Not even nothing. " This " is not evolving. This has no edge, nor any center. Nonconceptual being. Not an anchor for thought. Dissolution of thought-formed anchorings, memory-based knowing. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > One can look deeply into time construction and understand that one > is forming this construction, this template. > > One can be aware that the biological organism is a construct the > requires time, that has a limited life that begins and ends. > > One can be aware without dependence on any constructed form. Thank you, Dan. Many on this list seem to be busy forming constructs, including constructs like " there's no xxxxx " . Then they get busy solidifying these constructs, all in support of what they're supposedly wanting to get rid of. > This awareness has no name. > > It is not the concept of awareness. > > It is not even nothing. > > But one now understands that awareness is not being produced by > biological organisms. > > Biological organisms are constructs through awareness. > > One rests timelessly. > > The sabbath moment. > > Nothing to invest in. > > Not biology, not location, not any quality. Biology is real enough, but it's " external " to awareness. It's another example of a mental object, which we are not actually " in contact with " but imagining (imaging) through thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > -geo- The brain is a construct. It can be used as a metaphor. People here write using " brain " as a metaphor for something that anchors awareness. Truth is not anchored in something, anything. There is no applicable metaphor, no word or concept that can stand-in for what is so. Not constructs about an awareness, and not in constructs about a brain. This is why wise teachers inevitably come to a point of negation in their teaching. Their negation is not negating anything. It is pointing to the futility of the attempt to anchor in something, any something of any kind, any metphor, any knowledge. It is the attempt to anchor, to hold, to have a grasp on truth that is the negation. So, the negative teaching is to negate negation. Affirmative teachings tend to provide a seeming anchor. So, a thorn, a something is seemingly left by any affirmation, which can be removed by a thorn which is then discarded. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > -geo- > > > > No. > > toombaru > > Dear forum members...you may write...but not loudly please..our friend > toomba needs some sleep. ...ssssssssshhh. > Just because you dont know what you where before being born means nothing > as > a ground was? > Is that which you where before being born gone now?? > ssssssshhh... > -geo- > Where did you get the idea that you were something before you were born? Do you imagine that it came from the same place that the idea that you will live after you die? I have some news: The you that you think you are......never was born.......but it will die. toombaru Not ME. Not YOU. IT. The unamed, qualitiless, existence-per-se....there is no name for it. Look toomba. The centered entity is gone, right? Its just conditioning... Now what is there? There is this organism which is no more then its senses. The only way i can talk of an organism is because of the senses. I am looking at the senses. All movements receive by the senses is also the organism. They are not separte. The dances of colors in the retina IS the organism. So I can say that all perceivable world IS what i am. All manifestation is what i am. Now i ask again: what am I? Here is the quantum leap: a voice in the shadow is saying...any voice...is saying: investigate further, you are not this world you perceive...you are beyond. That beyond hs no name no quality no nothing..nonetheless is real. It is the foundation of existence per se. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > -geo- > > The brain is a construct. > > It can be used as a metaphor. > > People here write using " brain " as a metaphor for something that > anchors awareness. Folks are looking for 'external' anchors. Family, God, nation, brain, it's all the same thing. All in support of a construct ('me') so fragile that it requires constant maintenance. The energy expended in support of this 'central' construct is astounding! > Truth is not anchored in something, anything. One could say 'Truth' is itself the anchor for everything else. Everything rests in awareness. Beyond words is the anchor everyone is looking for, but first all anchors have to be thrown overboard. > It is pointing to the futility of the attempt to anchor in something, any something of any kind, any metphor, any knowledge. > > It is the attempt to anchor, to hold, to have a grasp on truth that is the negation. > > So, the negative teaching is to negate negation. > > Affirmative teachings tend to provide a seeming anchor. > > So, a thorn, a something is seemingly left by any affirmation, which can be removed by a thorn which is then discarded. > > > -- Dan 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.