Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further comment that it was a stupid question. People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the following: (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* the screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? > > Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further comment that it was a stupid question. > > People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. > > P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the following: > > (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. > > (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. > > If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* the screen. " you " are not " located " anywhere dummy. there is no such thing as " in front of " or " behind " . it's a dumb ass question. you don't know what you're talking about. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? > > > > Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further comment that it was a stupid question. > > > > People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. > > > > P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the following: > > > > (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. > > > > (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. > > > > If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* the screen. > > > > " you " are not " located " anywhere dummy. > > there is no such thing as " in front of " or " behind " . > > it's a dumb ass question. > > you don't know what you're talking about. > > .b b.b. True, I don't. I'm an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? > > > > > > Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further comment that it was a stupid question. > > > > > > People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. > > > > > > P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the following: > > > > > > (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. > > > > > > (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. > > > > > > If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* the screen. > > > > > > > > " you " are not " located " anywhere dummy. > > > > there is no such thing as " in front of " or " behind " . > > > > it's a dumb ass question. > > > > you don't know what you're talking about. > > > > .b b.b. > > True, I don't. I'm an idiot. with a capital I? " you " must be an important idiot. are " you " answering this from behind " me " .. or are " you " standing right " in front " of me? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > True, I don't. I'm an idiot. with a capital I? Either way :-). > " you " must be an important idiot. > > are " you " answering this from behind " me " .. > > or are " you " standing right " in front " of me? Within you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > True, I don't. I'm an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a capital I? > > Either way :-). > > > " you " must be an important idiot. > > > > are " you " answering this from behind " me " .. > > > > or are " you " standing right " in front " of me? > > Within you. like the computer screen. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > True, I don't. I'm an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a capital I? > > > > Either way :-). > > > > > " you " must be an important idiot. > > > > > > are " you " answering this from behind " me " .. > > > > > > or are " you " standing right " in front " of me? > > > > Within you. > > > like the computer screen. > > .b b.b. No, the computer screen is there in the room with you. Sitting right in front of you. I'm not there in the room with you. I'm within you. You're visualizing me, imagining me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > True, I don't. I'm an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a capital I? > > > > > > Either way :-). > > > > > > > " you " must be an important idiot. > > > > > > > > are " you " answering this from behind " me " .. > > > > > > > > or are " you " standing right " in front " of me? > > > > > > Within you. > > > > > > like the computer screen. > > > > .b b.b. > > No, the computer screen is there in the room with you. Sitting right in front of you. > > I'm not there in the room with you. I'm within you. You're visualizing me, imagining me. both the computer screen and " me " and " you " and all things.. are imagined. in a place of no place. no locations are found within. and nobody is home. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > No, the computer screen is there in the room with you. Sitting right in front of you. > > > > I'm not there in the room with you. I'm within you. You're visualizing me, imagining me. > > > both the computer screen and " me " and " you " and all things.. > > are imagined. It's a mistake to view the concrete the same way as the imaginary. Unless being hit over the head with a brick is the same as imagining it happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? > > > > Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further comment that it was a stupid question. > > > > People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. > > > > P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the following: > > > > (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. > > > > (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. > > > > If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* the screen. > > > > " you " are not " located " anywhere dummy. > > there is no such thing as " in front of " or " behind " . > > it's a dumb ass question. > > you don't know what you're talking about. > > .b b.b. > What is two hundred miles South of earth? Location is identification. (bumper sticker) (for the non-dualistically sophisticated) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? > > Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further comment that it was a stupid question. > > People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. > > P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the following: > > (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. > > (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. > > If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* the screen. Hi Tim - I replied to this when you posted it on your list. I like it, so now I'll respond here. In order to situate yourself in front of something and looking at it, you'd have to be able to look back and see yourself looking forward. It's a nice paradox you set up. It also refers to time as well as location. To know myself as existing in a certain moment that is moving forward in time, I'd have to be in the next moment that is yet to occur, looking back at myself. Similarly, to be behind the eye, looking out, I'd have to be in front of the eye to know where the location behind the eye is. " The eye through which I see God, is the same eye through which God sees me. " Meister Eckhart Good stuff, -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:51 PM Re: Seating Position (reprise) Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer > screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? > > Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately > there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I > was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further > comment that it was a stupid question. > > People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to > " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position > outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. > > P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the > following: > > (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. > > (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. > > If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* > the screen. Hi Tim - I replied to this when you posted it on your list. I like it, so now I'll respond here. In order to situate yourself in front of something and looking at it, you'd have to be able to look back and see yourself looking forward. It's a nice paradox you set up. It also refers to time as well as location. To know myself as existing in a certain moment that is moving forward in time, I'd have to be in the next moment that is yet to occur, looking back at myself. Similarly, to be behind the eye, looking out, I'd have to be in front of the eye to know where the location behind the eye is. " The eye through which I see God, is the same eye through which God sees me. " Meister Eckhart Good stuff, -- Dan Now.... if you where to stay in between you will have to split to be in front and behind to know where the midlle is. If you add above to all this then you will have to lay down flat back on the floor AND face down so that you can look above and bellow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:51 PM > Re: Seating Position (reprise) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer > > screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? > > > > Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately > > there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I > > was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further > > comment that it was a stupid question. > > > > People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to > > " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position > > outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. > > > > P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the > > following: > > > > (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. > > > > (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. > > > > If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* > > the screen. > > Hi Tim - > > I replied to this when you posted it on your list. > > I like it, so now I'll respond here. > > In order to situate yourself in front of something and looking at it, you'd > have to be able to look back and see yourself looking forward. > > It's a nice paradox you set up. > > It also refers to time as well as location. > > To know myself as existing in a certain moment that is moving forward in > time, I'd have to be in the next moment that is yet to occur, looking back > at myself. > > Similarly, to be behind the eye, looking out, I'd have to be in front of the > eye to know where the location behind the eye is. > > " The eye through which I see God, is the same eye through which God sees > me. " Meister Eckhart > > Good stuff, > > -- Dan > > Now.... if you where to stay in between you will have to split to be in > front and behind to know where the midlle is. If you add above to all this > then you will have to lay down flat back on the floor AND face down so that > you can look above and bellow... look above and bellow at what? the moon? like a wolf? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 > Now.... if you where to stay in between you will have to split to be in > front and behind to know where the midlle is. If you add above to all this > then you will have to lay down flat back on the floor AND face down so > that > you can look above and bellow... look above and bellow at what? the moon? like a wolf? ..b b.b. No. You did not understand. Wait I will explain it in more details...just a sec... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Now.... if you where to stay in between you will have to split to be in > > front and behind to know where the midlle is. If you add above to all this > > then you will have to lay down flat back on the floor AND face down so > > that > > you can look above and bellow... > > look above and bellow at what? > > the moon? > > like a wolf? > > .b b.b. > > No. You did not understand. Wait I will explain it in more details...just a > sec... > -geo- oh wait.. that's " bellow " like a bull. wolves " bay " at the moon. besides..we're looking down from above right? so it wouldn't be the moon either. ok no moon..no wolf... just pure bull right? but then i can wait for the details. i'm sure they are forthcoming. it's hard to come up with something up there huh? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:46 PM Re: Seating Position (reprise) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Now.... if you where to stay in between you will have to split to be in > > front and behind to know where the midlle is. If you add above to all > > this > > then you will have to lay down flat back on the floor AND face down so > > that > > you can look above and bellow... > > look above and bellow at what? > > the moon? > > like a wolf? > > .b b.b. > > No. You did not understand. Wait I will explain it in more details...just > a > sec... > -geo- oh wait.. that's " bellow " like a bull. wolves " bay " at the moon. besides..we're looking down from above right? so it wouldn't be the moon either. ok no moon..no wolf... just pure bull right? but then i can wait for the details. i'm sure they are forthcoming. it's hard to come up with something up there huh? ..b b.b. No..no...its comming.. I think it was too much oats. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 > > Now.... if you where to stay in between you will have to split to be in > > front and behind to know where the midlle is. If you add above to all > > this > > then you will have to lay down flat back on the floor AND face down so > > that > > you can look above and bellow... > > look above and bellow at what? > > the moon? > > like a wolf? > > .b b.b. > > No. You did not understand. Wait I will explain it in more details...just > a > sec... > -geo- oh wait.. that's " bellow " like a bull. wolves " bay " at the moon. besides..we're looking down from above right? so it wouldn't be the moon either. ok no moon..no wolf... just pure bull right? but then i can wait for the details. i'm sure they are forthcoming. it's hard to come up with something up there huh? ..b b.b. No..no...its comming.. I think it was too much oats. -geo- neti...neti....oats... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Now.... if you where to stay in between you will have to split to be in > front and behind to know where the midlle is. If you add above to all this > then you will have to lay down flat back on the floor AND face down so that > you can look above and bellow... So, like it says in the Nike ad: just do it. And NOW ... You already are always doing it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? > > > > Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further comment that it was a stupid question. > > > > People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. > > > > P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the following: > > > > (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. > > > > (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. > > > > If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* the screen. > > Hi Tim - > > I replied to this when you posted it on your list. > > I like it, so now I'll respond here. > > In order to situate yourself in front of something and looking at it, you'd have to be able to look back and see yourself looking forward. > > It's a nice paradox you set up. > > It also refers to time as well as location. > > To know myself as existing in a certain moment that is moving forward in time, I'd have to be in the next moment that is yet to occur, looking back at myself. > > Similarly, to be behind the eye, looking out, I'd have to be in > front of the eye to know where the location behind the eye is. In a way that's true... but looking 'forward' right now, I can see the corners of my nose, the frames of my eyeglasses, cheeks (if I make a face), etc. There's still a thought process involved in deducing that eyes are looking, but it isn't entirely dreamy (like " I'm standing in front of you " is). The momentum toward seeing self from another's perspective, drops. I look out of my own eyes only. Much attachment is based on the self-image... one could say it's the glue holding the house of cards together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? > > > > > > Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further comment that it was a stupid question. > > > > > > People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. > > > > > > P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the following: > > > > > > (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. > > > > > > (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. > > > > > > If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* the screen. > > > > Hi Tim - > > > > I replied to this when you posted it on your list. > > > > I like it, so now I'll respond here. > > > > In order to situate yourself in front of something and looking at it, you'd have to be able to look back and see yourself looking forward. > > > > It's a nice paradox you set up. > > > > It also refers to time as well as location. > > > > To know myself as existing in a certain moment that is moving forward in time, I'd have to be in the next moment that is yet to occur, looking back at myself. > > > > Similarly, to be behind the eye, looking out, I'd have to be in > > front of the eye to know where the location behind the eye is. > > In a way that's true... but looking 'forward' right now, I can see the corners of my nose, the frames of my eyeglasses, cheeks (if I make a face), etc. There's still a thought process involved in deducing that eyes are looking, but it isn't entirely dreamy (like " I'm standing in front of you " is). > > The momentum toward seeing self from another's perspective, drops. I look out of my own eyes only. Much attachment is based on the self-image... one could say it's the glue holding the house of cards together. If I look without any reference to thought, what happens? Of course, as I speak of this, the words act as an intermediary, and there isn't any intermediary. What happens is that the sense of a self behind the eye, using it to look out at the world, evaporates. Awareness, without an anchor to thought and memory, is no longer located in a position behind the eyeball. The eye is the universe it sees. Without thought-self as intermediary, there is no division this moment between the act of seeing and what is being seen, nor any location to place awareness while the seeing takes place. With no reference to an imaginary time involving memory, there is no registration as an experience that occurs. The time of this experience is timeless, meaning that time isn't a reference point for it. This experience is not located in relation to a self, so it is simply open. Whatever the experience is, is whatever it is. And it is open. The visual sense is not separated from any other sense. Feeling, seeing, touching, tasting, kinetic sensing, even the momentary sensation of a thought movement. All is experientially included without any division of one sense from another. There is sensing -- and the one who is sensing, and that which is sensed are not divisible. There is no time for the experience to register, so it is experiencing only in terms of words - what it is, isn't an experience, because there is no time format for it to register. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I posted a question earlier -- are you sitting (A) in front of a computer screen, or (B) behind a computer screen? > > > > > > > > Thought it would be interesting to see some responses... unfortunately there was only one (from roberibus), and it was " doh, in front of... if I was behind it, I wouldn't be able to see the screen " , with a further comment that it was a stupid question. > > > > > > > > People are literally not conscious of where they're located relative to " others " . People seem to believe to be seeing themselves from a position outside themselves as " other " . It's a little scary. > > > > > > > > P.S. if you still believe to be sitting 'in front of' the screen, try the following: > > > > > > > > (A) Focus your attention on the computer monitor. > > > > > > > > (B) Now, move your attention backwards, to your body. > > > > > > > > If you indeed moved your attention *backwards*, you are sitting *behind* the screen. > > > > > > Hi Tim - > > > > > > I replied to this when you posted it on your list. > > > > > > I like it, so now I'll respond here. > > > > > > In order to situate yourself in front of something and looking at it, you'd have to be able to look back and see yourself looking forward. > > > > > > It's a nice paradox you set up. > > > > > > It also refers to time as well as location. > > > > > > To know myself as existing in a certain moment that is moving forward in time, I'd have to be in the next moment that is yet to occur, looking back at myself. > > > > > > Similarly, to be behind the eye, looking out, I'd have to be in > > > front of the eye to know where the location behind the eye is. > > > > In a way that's true... but looking 'forward' right now, I can see the corners of my nose, the frames of my eyeglasses, cheeks (if I make a face), etc. There's still a thought process involved in deducing that eyes are looking, but it isn't entirely dreamy (like " I'm standing in front of you " is). > > > > The momentum toward seeing self from another's perspective, drops. I look out of my own eyes only. Much attachment is based on the self-image... one could say it's the glue holding the house of cards together. > > If I look without any reference to thought, what happens? > > Of course, as I speak of this, the words act as an intermediary, and there isn't any intermediary. > > What happens is that the sense of a self behind the eye, using it to look out at the world, evaporates. > > Awareness, without an anchor to thought and memory, is no longer located in a position behind the eyeball. > > The eye is the universe it sees. > > Without thought-self as intermediary, there is no division this moment between the act of seeing and what is being seen, nor any location to place awareness while the seeing takes place. > > With no reference to an imaginary time involving memory, there is no registration as an experience that occurs. > > The time of this experience is timeless, meaning that time isn't a reference point for it. > > This experience is not located in relation to a self, so it is simply open. > > Whatever the experience is, is whatever it is. > > And it is open. > > The visual sense is not separated from any other sense. > > Feeling, seeing, touching, tasting, kinetic sensing, even the momentary sensation of a thought movement. > > All is experientially included without any division of one sense from another. > > There is sensing -- and the one who is sensing, and that which is sensed are not divisible. > > There is no time for the experience to register, so it is experiencing only in terms of words - what it is, isn't an experience, because there is no time format for it to register. > > > -- D. Beautifully said, Dan. We can consider seeing oneself from another's perspective (entirely false) to " seeing out of one's own eyes only " , to 'as you put it above' as a continuum from 'falsehood' to 'truth'. This is, in a way, the route taken, or rather the dissolution of the false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:46 PM > Re: Seating Position (reprise) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > Now.... if you where to stay in between you will have to split to be in > > > front and behind to know where the midlle is. If you add above to all > > > this > > > then you will have to lay down flat back on the floor AND face down so > > > that > > > you can look above and bellow... > > > > look above and bellow at what? > > > > the moon? > > > > like a wolf? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > No. You did not understand. Wait I will explain it in more details...just > > a > > sec... > > -geo- > > oh wait.. > > that's " bellow " like a bull. > > wolves " bay " at the moon. > > besides..we're looking down from above right? > > so it wouldn't be the moon either. > > ok no moon..no wolf... > > just pure bull right? > > but then i can wait for the details. > > i'm sure they are forthcoming. > > it's hard to come up with something up there huh? > > .b b.b. > > No..no...its comming.. I think it was too much oats. > -geo- " comming " ? what the hell is it that those oats are up to here? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > Now.... if you where to stay in between you will have to split to be in > > > front and behind to know where the midlle is. If you add above to all > > > this > > > then you will have to lay down flat back on the floor AND face down so > > > that > > > you can look above and bellow... > > > > look above and bellow at what? > > > > the moon? > > > > like a wolf? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > No. You did not understand. Wait I will explain it in more details...just > > a > > sec... > > -geo- > > oh wait.. > > that's " bellow " like a bull. > > wolves " bay " at the moon. > > besides..we're looking down from above right? > > so it wouldn't be the moon either. > > ok no moon..no wolf... > > just pure bull right? > > but then i can wait for the details. > > i'm sure they are forthcoming. > > it's hard to come up with something up there huh? > > .b b.b. > > No..no...its comming.. I think it was too much oats. > -geo- > > neti...neti....oats... > -geo- beti beti.. any amount you want to beti.. that that's bullshit not oats. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > Beautifully said, Dan. We can consider seeing oneself from another's perspective (entirely false) to " seeing out of one's own eyes only " , to 'as you put it above' as a continuum from 'falsehood' to 'truth'. This Glad you liked it. So, it was worth the effort. ;-) I like what you say here, as well. Psychotherapy tends to assist movement from the false perspectives and beliefs internalized from others to seeing out of one's own eyes, validating one's own truth (from one to two in your scheme). But the leap to truth not based in thought can't come from communicating with another. And that leap can often happen through a kind of distress or crisis that one would never encourage in therapy. It is life itself, being lived, that is the catalyst. It is self-catalyzing, without a self being involved. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > Beautifully said, Dan. We can consider seeing oneself from another's perspective (entirely false) to " seeing out of one's own eyes only " , to 'as you put it above' as a continuum from 'falsehood' to 'truth'. This > > Glad you liked it. So, it was worth the effort. ;-) ^ LOL :-). 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.