Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > ...further consideratons... the list is silent anyway... > ================== > > 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. > > 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> But this is totaly theoretical. Once the mechanism of image making is > understood, where is the impediment to see the same mechanism in others? Geo - There isn't any actual " me. " It has never come into existence because it is a contradiction, an impossibility. One instant of clarity, and it is finished. It depends on nonclarity, on holding on to ignore-ance. Once seen, ignore-ance isn't possible. And where is one seeing from? One is not seeing from the vantage point of " an organism. " One is not holding on to this vantage point, it is over. This is not seen " by an organism. " As long as the seeing appears to be by an organism, it makes sense to see other organisms with their mistaken mechanisms making " me's " out there - as you describe. Once clear that locating awareness in an organism is another version of " me " - one ends that attempt to attach to a " me " (here, not out there, not by someone else). So, who is the seeing by, then? It is by awareness itself. And what is seen. Simply the truth of being - wordless, without attempting to attach it to something. Clear on this here - there is nowhere else to be clear on it. Here includes all apparent " there's " ... There is no one else involved. Only awareness. There is no " me " that ever existed. There is no " me " mechanism that ever produced a me. There is no war of " me's " going on. No division anywhere, ever. Stillness. Nothing to do. Nothing that must be remedied. No imposition by thought needed. > There is no entity. It is just a conditioning. What you see in others is a > result of their identification with the body, their fear, their anguish, > their searching, their need of becoming. The attempt to become is ended here. The " noise " of " others " and their strivings dissolves. It is truly noise. It is not an actual reality. It is only attempts being made. The attempts are not grounded in anything, and they aren't going anywhere. They will unwind when it is time for the unwinding of them. > Time is clearly understood only > from a timeless perspective...agree? Yes. So, striving to become are empty of any truth value or meaning. " A lot of storm and fury, signifying nothing. " Shakespeare > The only 'me' that really requires being addressed is the one here, now. > > Not 'out there' belonging to someone else. > > geo>I feel that from the correct perspective there is the seeing of both. > There is no me to be seen anywhere of course. What is seen is the > consequences of my eventual identification with my body, and their > identification with theirs. Geo - please note you are saying my identification with my body and their identification with their bodies. With " me-attempt " dissolved there is no anchoring of knowing in any " me. " So there are no " me's " out there to identify with their bodies. There is only a misguided misunderstood attempt to use a body as an anchor for knowing, awareness, being. Once that attempt is over here, there is no me anywhere that could identify into or as a body. > Now I hear one saying " hei, there is no here and > there, me and they " . True, what is seen are the results of such illusion. In > a direct confrontation with another human being, through a process of > feed-back, one is more..... or less aware of these conditionings. > Why not? Yes, I agree. But one understands that conditioning is an aspect of a seamless apparent manifestation process. There are no divisions anywhere. No division between conditioning and conditioned. There is no entity separate that is being conditioned. The unconditional truth is here, now. Conditioning doesn't taint the unconditional. > 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. > > geo> I dont know who you are referring to here. Isn't it clear? I am referring to the one here. There isn't anyone else. Nis.as far as I have read > him, never did that. This is something " you " read. Read by the one here. This is only one here. > Krishnamurti says clearly that there is no " I " . > Gurdjieff would say be aware of " I am " ... but that is not the ME we are > talking about here. These are " other people's words. " When my words appear on the screen, they appear to the one reading as " other person's words. " Same when you write and I read. Yet, the one reading is the one, the awareness. The words are perceived objects. The people who have spoken are perceived objects. The awareness reading is not going to learn more about what it is from the words being provided. It learns only by being, and it now is. So, the learning is no learning - is being. Is with no " no " no negation, and therefore no affirmation. Not even " is. " Not even " nothing. " -- 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.