Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: Hi Geo - > Yes I know we have been into this other times, doesnt matter. It seems to me > that what is missing in the above is a clear awareness, a clear seeing of > the conditioned as time, space, light, sounds... Your idea of conditioning is itself conditioned. When you think you are seeing the conditioned as time, space, light, sounds, you're just seeing a projection of your own thought, your own conditioning. You then confirm to yourself that you're really seeing clearly, because you are able (it seems to you) to validate your preconception. >In order to this " field " be > clearly seen there is a first pre-condition: the understanding that there is > no entity. No, and at this point I have no illusions that pointing out the contradiction in your statement will be useful in any way to you. However, here it is: there is no precondition to clear seeing. A precondition itself involves time. By missing the obvious, you support yourself as " seeing " a projection of your expectations of what you will see, and thereby confirm that you are right, you are really seeing. It is the same as saying that there is an unitary > seeing/being/doing, no fragmentation within the field. When you say " for > example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, > repeatability, predictability. Who wants these qualities, who benefits from > these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be > continuity? " , you are implicitly stating that there is no way to live in > this world in a non-fragmented way. No, I'm not stating that at all. But I can see how it sounds like that to you. It's not at all a matter of a fragmented way vs. an unfragmented way. There aren't two ways. It's simply being, undivided. There aren't different ways of seeing here. It has nothing to do with living in this world vs. living somewhere else. There isn't anywhere else. If this is the case the door seems to be > closed because we must live...nonetheless we...not we....IT is, even as we > live - obviously. To calculate 2+2 must not need a self, some entity to > benefit from it, because it is clear that it is just thought thinking in its > small limited field as consciousness. This is beeing seen. How would it be possible for thought to think anywhere else than " in its field " ? Why call that field small? It's just thought. Thought arises and departs. It didn't do anything. It didn't make some little field exist and then stop existing. It just flickered for an instant and was gone. No movements, > events, episodes, things, prevent the perception of this luminous limited > field as it is unfolding. I know...seems a contradiction, because I say that > sometimes all is dark here - indeed - but that remains unsolved for the time > being...(time??). Is the organism, consciousness a belief? I would say it is > a conditioning, but you would need to be a sorcerer (nagualism) in order to > escape from it. You don't escape from it. You are it. And thus, you die. Because thought is not continuous. The notion that thought has the property of self-continuity, is based on ignore-ance. By that I mean, you have to ignore the constant flickering, shifting, movement of thought. Thought isn't continuous at all. It moves in and out of focus, varies in intensity, its forms are evershifting, it is always moving - regardless of the assumption imbedded in thought structures that they are continuous, that they are built upon previous thoughts, that they will make something happen in the future ... Is the self a belief? Yes. And that beleif can be dropped in > a sec. and still 2+2=4. > -geo- Who is dropping the self, and can say that it has dropped? What is it like to feel a self, and not to feel a self, and how is that difference determined? To whom does the number 2 represent a quantity? Where is it known what a quantity is, that is represented by a number? Who learned in the past how to add, and from whence is the structure derived that allows an equation to make sense? - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 > Is it possible that there are not receptacles called selves that house > beliefs and attitudes? > -d- > > What is a belief? I mean not " I believe jose street is next corner, or I > believe 2+2 =4 " , but beliefs about existence, about inner needs, morality, > countries, tribes. Can such beliefs arise without an imaginary self, an > imaginary separate entity? What I want to say is that even if you see that > there are no receptacles, no entities, you will notice that some will > indeed exhibit beliefs and others are unable to to so - are free of them. > > This is the skeleton of something arising in my being.... > -geo- Hi Geo - The belief that 2 + 2 = 4 gives one a sense of consistency and predictability. A belief is a thought-based formulation that is applied to situations to bring order and predictability, to know what to expect, to have an explanation. Science is built up of beliefs, and includes a way to test those beliefs in an organized and reliable manner. But it is still built of beliefs. You are differentiating between beliefs of one type and beliefs of another type (that you believe involve an assumed self). As I see it, the application of a belief involves imagined continuity, which is the basis for imagining self. For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, repeatability, predictability. Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be continuity? You, Geo, appear to me to have a belief that there are certain types of people who have a self, and other types of people who don't have a self. Apparently, from what you write above, you believe that the self is restricted to beliefs in certain areas, ones that Krishnamurti liked to talk about (morality, existence, countries, tribes). But look into this. I am cut by a stone on my knee. I know that if I get a band-aid, I can stop the bleeding. I know that if it is bleeding too bad, I can get to the emergency room at a hospital. I believe my car will start if I turn on the ignition switch. You and I have been down this road before. The organism is a belief. The idea that some organisms have beliefs and others don't, is a belief; that the car will start is a belief. The idea that you will get the self to drop away from thought, so thought can function without self, is a misunderstanding, in my opinion. I know it is often represented that way. And I perceive that this way of representing truth is a distortion, and supports the view that there are special teachers with a special way of no-self thinking, who are needed by others who rely on self-thinking, to guide them. And I don't see it like that. Indeed, that is a pernicious kind of self-investment going on there. There are not some thoughts (moralistic thoughts, nationalistic thoughts) that have selves attached as beliefs, and other thoughts ( " find a band-aid to put on this cut " ) that are just an immediate response without a self. Either way, there is just thought arising and departing. The only self ever found is as an interpreted aspect of a thought arising and departing. If there isn't any investment in that interpretation, there is no self to be found anywhere. Another way to say this is: there is no actual continuing being anywhere linking thoughts to their goals over time. Another way to say this is: belief is the application of thought to situations in such a way as to infer continuity over time for things and beings. Another way: there is *only* change, and that changingness includes the unchanging aspect of the changingness. That inferred continuity never actually exists. Belief never truly defines a reality. It's simply a matter of how deeply one questions belief. That's all. - D - And...followint the logic of your wording we would conclude that a human being is not only not able to express what is, but also - it is not just a matter of not having words for it but - totaly unable to be-it; because we are alive in this world. We type keybords, we hold knifes and forks, we walk, sit and talk...quite tridimenstionally BTW. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > Is it possible that there are not receptacles called selves that house > > beliefs and attitudes? > > -d- > > > > What is a belief? I mean not " I believe jose street is next corner, or I > > believe 2+2 =4 " , but beliefs about existence, about inner needs, morality, > > countries, tribes. Can such beliefs arise without an imaginary self, an > > imaginary separate entity? What I want to say is that even if you see that > > there are no receptacles, no entities, you will notice that some will > > indeed exhibit beliefs and others are unable to to so - are free of them. > > > > This is the skeleton of something arising in my being.... > > -geo- > > Hi Geo - > > The belief that 2 + 2 = 4 gives one a sense of consistency and > predictability. > > A belief is a thought-based formulation that is applied to situations to > bring order and predictability, to know what to expect, to have an > explanation. > > Science is built up of beliefs, and includes a way to test those beliefs in > an organized and reliable manner. But it is still built of beliefs. > > You are differentiating between beliefs of one type and beliefs of another > type (that you believe involve an assumed self). > > As I see it, the application of a belief involves imagined continuity, which > is the basis for imagining self. > > For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, > repeatability, predictability. > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes that > security, who wants there to be continuity? > > You, Geo, appear to me to have a belief that there are certain types of > people who have a self, and other types of people who don't have a self. > > Apparently, from what you write above, you believe that the self is > restricted to beliefs in certain areas, ones that Krishnamurti liked to talk > about (morality, existence, countries, tribes). > > But look into this. > > I am cut by a stone on my knee. I know that if I get a band-aid, I can stop > the bleeding. I know that if it is bleeding too bad, I can get to the > emergency room at a hospital. I believe my car will start if I turn on the > ignition switch. > > You and I have been down this road before. > > The organism is a belief. > > The idea that some organisms have beliefs and others don't, is a belief; > that the car will start is a belief. > > The idea that you will get the self to drop away from thought, so thought > can function without self, is a misunderstanding, in my opinion. I know it > is often represented that way. And I perceive that this way of representing > truth is a distortion, and supports the view that there are special teachers > with a special way of no-self thinking, who are needed by others who rely on > self-thinking, to guide them. And I don't see it like that. Indeed, that is > a pernicious kind of self-investment going on there. > > There are not some thoughts (moralistic thoughts, nationalistic thoughts) > that have selves attached as beliefs, and other thoughts ( " find a band-aid > to put on this cut " ) that are just an immediate response without a self. > > Either way, there is just thought arising and departing. > > The only self ever found is as an interpreted aspect of a thought arising > and departing. > > If there isn't any investment in that interpretation, there is no self to be > found anywhere. > > Another way to say this is: there is no actual continuing being anywhere > linking thoughts to their goals over time. > > Another way to say this is: belief is the application of thought to > situations in such a way as to infer continuity over time for things and > beings. > > Another way: there is *only* change, and that changingness includes the > unchanging aspect of the changingness. > > That inferred continuity never actually exists. > > Belief never truly defines a reality. > > It's simply a matter of how deeply one questions belief. > > That's all. > > - D - > > And...followint the logic of your wording we would conclude that a human > being is not only not able to express what is, but also - it is not just a > matter of not having words for it but - totaly unable to be-it; because we > are alive in this world. We type keybords, we hold knifes and forks, we > walk, sit and talk...quite tridimenstionally BTW. > -geo- You've pretty much missed what I've been saying to you for quite some time, Geo. And that's okay, you're not under any obligation to derive from what I'm saying anything remotely near to the meaning with which it was constructed. It's this way: The human being is expressing fully what is, and indeed is what is, moment to moment. What is, so much is, that there is no such thing as " expression " of it, as if there could be any such thing as " nonexpression " of it. The interpretation and definition of what the human being is, tends to distort the awareness, if it is drawn into an interpretive framework taken as if a reality. Then, projection, introjection, investment in a position of time start to function as a reinforcing loop to attempt to make a reality out of what has no reality. Nonetheless, no such reality has ever been established. Apparently, you believe there is some division between what is, and living and thinking. I don't share that belief. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Friday, August 14, 2009 7:07 PM Re: daily Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: Hi Geo - > Yes I know we have been into this other times, doesnt matter. It seems to > me > that what is missing in the above is a clear awareness, a clear seeing of > the conditioned as time, space, light, sounds... Your idea of conditioning is itself conditioned. When you think you are seeing the conditioned as time, space, light, sounds, you're just seeing a projection of your own thought, your own conditioning. You then confirm to yourself that you're really seeing clearly, because you are able (it seems to you) to validate your preconception. geo> What makes you think so? >In order to this " field " be > clearly seen there is a first pre-condition: the understanding that there > is > no entity. No, and at this point I have no illusions that pointing out the contradiction in your statement will be useful in any way to you. However, here it is: there is no precondition to clear seeing. A precondition itself involves time. geo> I understand that, and was expecting your response. Not one before then the other after. How else could I put it in words? By missing the obvious, you support yourself as " seeing " a projection of your expectations of what you will see, and thereby confirm that you are right, you are really seeing. geo> Ahh...you are taking it personally. It is the same as saying that there is an unitary > seeing/being/doing, no fragmentation within the field. When you say " for > example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, > repeatability, predictability. Who wants these qualities, who benefits > from > these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be > continuity? " , you are implicitly stating that there is no way to live in > this world in a non-fragmented way. No, I'm not stating that at all. -d- dan: " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, repeatability, predictability. Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be continuity? But I can see how it sounds like that to you. It's not at all a matter of a fragmented way vs. an unfragmented way. There aren't two ways. It's simply being, undivided. There aren't different ways of seeing here. It has nothing to do with living in this world vs. living somewhere else. There isn't anywhere else. geo> Then why you say If this is the case the door seems to be > closed because we must live...nonetheless we...not we....IT is, even as we > live - obviously. To calculate 2+2 must not need a self, some entity to > benefit from it, because it is clear that it is just thought thinking in > its > small limited field as consciousness. This is beeing seen. How would it be possible for thought to think anywhere else than " in its field " ? Why call that field small? It's just thought. Thought arises and departs. It didn't do anything. It didn't make some little field exist and then stop existing. It just flickered for an instant and was gone. No movements, > events, episodes, things, prevent the perception of this luminous limited > field as it is unfolding. I know...seems a contradiction, because I say > that > sometimes all is dark here - indeed - but that remains unsolved for the > time > being...(time??). Is the organism, consciousness a belief? I would say it > is > a conditioning, but you would need to be a sorcerer (nagualism) in order > to > escape from it. You don't escape from it. You are it. And thus, you die. Because thought is not continuous. The notion that thought has the property of self-continuity, is based on ignore-ance. By that I mean, you have to ignore the constant flickering, shifting, movement of thought. Thought isn't continuous at all. It moves in and out of focus, varies in intensity, its forms are evershifting, it is always moving - regardless of the assumption imbedded in thought structures that they are continuous, that they are built upon previous thoughts, that they will make something happen in the future ... Is the self a belief? Yes. And that beleif can be dropped in > a sec. and still 2+2=4. > -geo- Who is dropping the self, and can say that it has dropped? geo> Slow down. I said the belief can be dropped. What is it like to feel a self, and not to feel a self, and how is that difference determined? To whom does the number 2 represent a quantity? Where is it known what a quantity is, that is represented by a number? Who learned in the past how to add, and from whence is the structure derived that allows an equation to make sense? - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 It is the same as saying that there is an unitary seeing/being/doing, no fragmentation within the field. When you say "for example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, repeatability, predictability. Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be continuity?", you are implicitly stating that there is no way to live in this world in a non-fragmented way. No, I'm not stating that at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Thought arises and departs.It didn't do anything.It didn't make some little field exist and then stop existing.It just flickered for an instant and was gone.-d- That is what I said. You say that to ad 2+2=4 there is need of someone to benefit from it. You said "For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, repeatability, predictability.Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be continuity?" -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Is the self a belief? Yes. And that beleif can be dropped in a sec. and still 2+2=4. -geo-Who is dropping the self, and can say that it has dropped? -d- Nowhere was said to drop a self, but the belief. -geo-What is it like to feel a self, and not to feel a self, and how is that difference determined?===To whom does the number 2 represent a quantity?Where is it known what a quantity is, that is represented by a number?Who learned in the past how to add, and from whence is the structure derived that allows an equation to make sense?- D - Here you go again. In the next post you will say that you did not say that to add 2+2 there is the need of a self or center or what? What are you trying to imply with those three questions above?? -geo- Messages in this topic (53) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 What is it like to feel a self, and not to feel a self, and how is that difference determined? -d- First, this can only be answered by one who does not have such belief - evidently.W/O such a limiting belief, consciousnes is understood in its impersonal limitedness as time and space. With the belief one lives witin a body looking out to an outside world - much like walking in a labirinth. I know you have an avalanche of words to oppose against these lines... let it come. :>)) -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Friday, August 14, 2009 9:48 PM > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Is it possible that there are not receptacles called selves that house > > > beliefs and attitudes? > > > -d- > > > > > > What is a belief? I mean not " I believe jose street is next corner, or I > > > believe 2+2 =4 " , but beliefs about existence, about inner needs, > > > morality, countries, tribes. Can such beliefs arise without an imaginary > > > self, an imaginary separate entity? What I want to say is that even if > > > you see that there are no receptacles, no entities, you will notice that > > > some will indeed exhibit beliefs and others are unable to to so - are > > > free of them. > > > > > > This is the skeleton of something arising in my being.... > > > -geo- > > > > > > Hi Geo - > > > > The belief that 2 + 2 = 4 gives one a sense of consistency and > > predictability. > > > > A belief is a thought-based formulation that is applied to situations to > > bring order and predictability, to know what to expect, to have an > > explanation. > > > > Science is built up of beliefs, and includes a way to test those beliefs > > in an organized and reliable manner. But it is still built of beliefs. > > > > You are differentiating between beliefs of one type and beliefs of another > > type (that you believe involve an assumed self). > > > > As I see it, the application of a belief involves imagined continuity, > > which is the basis for imagining self. > > > > For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, > > repeatability, predictability. > > > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes > > that security, who wants there to be continuity? > > > > You, Geo, appear to me to have a belief that there are certain types of > > people who have a self, and other types of people who don't have a self. > > > > Apparently, from what you write above, you believe that the self is > > restricted to beliefs in certain areas, ones that Krishnamurti liked to > > talk about (morality, existence, countries, tribes). > > > > But look into this. > > > > I am cut by a stone on my knee. I know that if I get a band-aid, I can > > stop the bleeding. I know that if it is bleeding too bad, I can get to the > > emergency room at a hospital. I believe my car will start if I turn on the > > ignition switch. > > > > You and I have been down this road before. > > > > The organism is a belief. > > > > The idea that some organisms have beliefs and others don't, is a belief; > > that the car will start is a belief. > > > > The idea that you will get the self to drop away from thought, so thought > > can function without self, is a misunderstanding, in my opinion. I know it > > is often represented that way. And I perceive that this way of > > representing truth is a distortion, and supports the view that there are > > special teachers with a special way of no-self thinking, who are needed by > > others who rely on self-thinking, to guide them. And I don't see it like > > that. Indeed, that is a pernicious kind of self-investment going on there. > > > > There are not some thoughts (moralistic thoughts, nationalistic thoughts) > > that have selves attached as beliefs, and other thoughts ( " find a band-aid > > to put on this cut " ) that are just an immediate response without a self. > > > > Either way, there is just thought arising and departing. > > > > The only self ever found is as an interpreted aspect of a thought arising > > and departing. > > > > If there isn't any investment in that interpretation, there is no self to > > be found anywhere. > > > > Another way to say this is: there is no actual continuing being anywhere > > linking thoughts to their goals over time. > > > > Another way to say this is: belief is the application of thought to > > situations in such a way as to infer continuity over time for things and > > beings. > > > > Another way: there is *only* change, and that changingness includes the > > unchanging aspect of the changingness. > > > > That inferred continuity never actually exists. > > > > Belief never truly defines a reality. > > > > It's simply a matter of how deeply one questions belief. > > > > That's all. > > > > - D - > > > > Nicely thought out and presented Dan. > > Thanks. > > toombaru > > Yes? So you also think that to add 2+2 one necessarilly needs a self? > Hmmmm... Very interesting. > -geo- > There is no such thing as four. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Friday, August 14, 2009 10:17 PM Re: daily Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Friday, August 14, 2009 9:48 PM > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Is it possible that there are not receptacles called selves that house > > > beliefs and attitudes? > > > -d- > > > > > > What is a belief? I mean not " I believe jose street is next corner, or > > > I > > > believe 2+2 =4 " , but beliefs about existence, about inner needs, > > > morality, countries, tribes. Can such beliefs arise without an > > > imaginary > > > self, an imaginary separate entity? What I want to say is that even if > > > you see that there are no receptacles, no entities, you will notice > > > that > > > some will indeed exhibit beliefs and others are unable to to so - are > > > free of them. > > > > > > This is the skeleton of something arising in my being.... > > > -geo- > > > > > > Hi Geo - > > > > The belief that 2 + 2 = 4 gives one a sense of consistency and > > predictability. > > > > A belief is a thought-based formulation that is applied to situations to > > bring order and predictability, to know what to expect, to have an > > explanation. > > > > Science is built up of beliefs, and includes a way to test those beliefs > > in an organized and reliable manner. But it is still built of beliefs. > > > > You are differentiating between beliefs of one type and beliefs of > > another > > type (that you believe involve an assumed self). > > > > As I see it, the application of a belief involves imagined continuity, > > which is the basis for imagining self. > > > > For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, > > repeatability, predictability. > > > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes > > that security, who wants there to be continuity? > > > > You, Geo, appear to me to have a belief that there are certain types of > > people who have a self, and other types of people who don't have a self. > > > > Apparently, from what you write above, you believe that the self is > > restricted to beliefs in certain areas, ones that Krishnamurti liked to > > talk about (morality, existence, countries, tribes). > > > > But look into this. > > > > I am cut by a stone on my knee. I know that if I get a band-aid, I can > > stop the bleeding. I know that if it is bleeding too bad, I can get to > > the > > emergency room at a hospital. I believe my car will start if I turn on > > the > > ignition switch. > > > > You and I have been down this road before. > > > > The organism is a belief. > > > > The idea that some organisms have beliefs and others don't, is a belief; > > that the car will start is a belief. > > > > The idea that you will get the self to drop away from thought, so > > thought > > can function without self, is a misunderstanding, in my opinion. I know > > it > > is often represented that way. And I perceive that this way of > > representing truth is a distortion, and supports the view that there are > > special teachers with a special way of no-self thinking, who are needed > > by > > others who rely on self-thinking, to guide them. And I don't see it like > > that. Indeed, that is a pernicious kind of self-investment going on > > there. > > > > There are not some thoughts (moralistic thoughts, nationalistic > > thoughts) > > that have selves attached as beliefs, and other thoughts ( " find a > > band-aid > > to put on this cut " ) that are just an immediate response without a self. > > > > Either way, there is just thought arising and departing. > > > > The only self ever found is as an interpreted aspect of a thought > > arising > > and departing. > > > > If there isn't any investment in that interpretation, there is no self > > to > > be found anywhere. > > > > Another way to say this is: there is no actual continuing being anywhere > > linking thoughts to their goals over time. > > > > Another way to say this is: belief is the application of thought to > > situations in such a way as to infer continuity over time for things and > > beings. > > > > Another way: there is *only* change, and that changingness includes the > > unchanging aspect of the changingness. > > > > That inferred continuity never actually exists. > > > > Belief never truly defines a reality. > > > > It's simply a matter of how deeply one questions belief. > > > > That's all. > > > > - D - > > > > Nicely thought out and presented Dan. > > Thanks. > > toombaru > > Yes? So you also think that to add 2+2 one necessarilly needs a self? > Hmmmm... Very interesting. > -geo- > There is no such thing as four. toombaru LOL Which four is not? What your word " four " refers to? LOL -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > What is it like to feel a self, and not to feel a self, and how is that difference determined? > -d- > > First, this can only be answered by one who does not have such belief - evidently. > W/O such a limiting belief, consciousnes is understood in its impersonal limitedness as time and space. > With the belief one lives witin a body looking out to an outside world - much like walking in a labirinth. > I know you have an avalanche of words to oppose against these lines... let it come. :>)) > -geo- Unless you die, you won't know this truth. You can speculate endlessly. The beliefs seem to convey something, and you want to put it together. It's to no avail. You must fail. And fall apart. The whole structure goes. Then, now, knowing. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Friday, August 14, 2009 7:41 PM > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > Is it possible that there are not receptacles called selves that house > > > beliefs and attitudes? > > > -d- > > > > > > What is a belief? I mean not " I believe jose street is next corner, or I > > > believe 2+2 =4 " , but beliefs about existence, about inner needs, > > > morality, > > > countries, tribes. Can such beliefs arise without an imaginary self, an > > > imaginary separate entity? What I want to say is that even if you see > > > that > > > there are no receptacles, no entities, you will notice that some will > > > indeed exhibit beliefs and others are unable to to so - are free of > > > them. > > > > > > This is the skeleton of something arising in my being.... > > > -geo- > > > > Hi Geo - > > > > The belief that 2 + 2 = 4 gives one a sense of consistency and > > predictability. > > > > A belief is a thought-based formulation that is applied to situations to > > bring order and predictability, to know what to expect, to have an > > explanation. > > > > Science is built up of beliefs, and includes a way to test those beliefs > > in > > an organized and reliable manner. But it is still built of beliefs. > > > > You are differentiating between beliefs of one type and beliefs of another > > type (that you believe involve an assumed self). > > > > As I see it, the application of a belief involves imagined continuity, > > which > > is the basis for imagining self. > > > > For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, > > repeatability, predictability. > > > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes > > that > > security, who wants there to be continuity? > > > > You, Geo, appear to me to have a belief that there are certain types of > > people who have a self, and other types of people who don't have a self. > > > > Apparently, from what you write above, you believe that the self is > > restricted to beliefs in certain areas, ones that Krishnamurti liked to > > talk > > about (morality, existence, countries, tribes). > > > > But look into this. > > > > I am cut by a stone on my knee. I know that if I get a band-aid, I can > > stop > > the bleeding. I know that if it is bleeding too bad, I can get to the > > emergency room at a hospital. I believe my car will start if I turn on the > > ignition switch. > > > > You and I have been down this road before. > > > > The organism is a belief. > > > > The idea that some organisms have beliefs and others don't, is a belief; > > that the car will start is a belief. > > > > The idea that you will get the self to drop away from thought, so thought > > can function without self, is a misunderstanding, in my opinion. I know it > > is often represented that way. And I perceive that this way of > > representing > > truth is a distortion, and supports the view that there are special > > teachers > > with a special way of no-self thinking, who are needed by others who rely > > on > > self-thinking, to guide them. And I don't see it like that. Indeed, that > > is > > a pernicious kind of self-investment going on there. > > > > There are not some thoughts (moralistic thoughts, nationalistic thoughts) > > that have selves attached as beliefs, and other thoughts ( " find a band-aid > > to put on this cut " ) that are just an immediate response without a self. > > > > Either way, there is just thought arising and departing. > > > > The only self ever found is as an interpreted aspect of a thought arising > > and departing. > > > > If there isn't any investment in that interpretation, there is no self to > > be > > found anywhere. > > > > Another way to say this is: there is no actual continuing being anywhere > > linking thoughts to their goals over time. > > > > Another way to say this is: belief is the application of thought to > > situations in such a way as to infer continuity over time for things and > > beings. > > > > Another way: there is *only* change, and that changingness includes the > > unchanging aspect of the changingness. > > > > That inferred continuity never actually exists. > > > > Belief never truly defines a reality. > > > > It's simply a matter of how deeply one questions belief. > > > > That's all. > > > > - D - > > > > And...followint the logic of your wording we would conclude that a human > > being is not only not able to express what is, but also - it is not just a > > matter of not having words for it but - totaly unable to be-it; because we > > are alive in this world. We type keybords, we hold knifes and forks, we > > walk, sit and talk...quite tridimenstionally BTW. > > -geo- > > You've pretty much missed what I've been saying to you for quite some time, > Geo. > > And that's okay, you're not under any obligation to derive from what I'm > saying anything remotely near to the meaning with which it was constructed. > > It's this way: > > The human being is expressing fully what is, and indeed is what is, moment > to moment. > > What is, so much is, that there is no such thing as " expression " of it, as > if there could be any such thing as " nonexpression " of it. > > The interpretation and definition of what the human being is, tends to > distort the awareness, if it is drawn into an interpretive framework taken > as if a reality. > > Then, projection, introjection, investment in a position of time start to > function as a reinforcing loop to attempt to make a reality out of what has > no reality. > > Nonetheless, no such reality has ever been established. > > Apparently, you believe there is some division between what is, and living > and thinking. > > I don't share that belief. > > - D - > > That is something else. You changed the subject. Is there the need of a > belief on a self to add 2+2? or not. Be direct. > -geo- The self isn't something you believe on. It is a structuring of beliefs based on continuity, on time. You only die to this when there is no other option for you. Otherwise, you will maintain your continuity as best you're able. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > It is the same as saying that there is an unitary > seeing/being/doing, no fragmentation within the field. When you say " for > example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, > repeatability, predictability. Who wants these qualities, who benefits from > these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be > continuity? " , you are implicitly stating that there is no way to live in > this world in a non-fragmented way. > > No, I'm not stating that at all. > -d- > > dan wrote: " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, repeatability, predictability. > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be continuity? > > Are you not implying the existence of some entity? > -geo- I'm saying understand the motivation for developing a system of mathematics. It would never have been developed without someone benefitting from the order it provided. The work would not have gone into it. I'm saying understand human nature. Unless you undertand human nature, and particularly its fear, and are that fear, you won't die to it. Dying to the known is not a bunch of ideas. It is to die. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:33 AM Re: daily Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > It is the same as saying that there is an unitary > seeing/being/doing, no fragmentation within the field. When you say " for > example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, > repeatability, predictability. Who wants these qualities, who benefits > from > these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be > continuity? " , you are implicitly stating that there is no way to live in > this world in a non-fragmented way. > > No, I'm not stating that at all. > -d- > > dan wrote: " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, > stability, repeatability, predictability. > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes > that security, who wants there to be continuity? > > Are you not implying the existence of some entity? > -geo- I'm saying understand the motivation for developing a system of mathematics. It would never have been developed without someone benefitting from the order it provided. The work would not have gone into it. I'm saying understand human nature. Unless you undertand human nature, and particularly its fear, and are that fear, you won't die to it. Dying to the known is not a bunch of ideas. It is to die. - D - And after I am dead will I be unable to add 2+2? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:31 AM > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Thought arises and departs. > > > > It didn't do anything. > > > > It didn't make some little field exist and then stop existing. > > > > It just flickered for an instant and was gone. > > > > -d- > > > > That is what I said. You say that to ad 2+2=4 there is need of someone to > > benefit from it. > > > > You said " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, > > stability, repeatability, predictability. > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes > > that security, who wants there to be continuity? " > > -geo- > > When you're not there to answer, can't answer, you won't have any question > either. > > You'll understand what no continuity is, because you won't have any. > > Meanwhile, you can think you've figured out that you can add 2 + 2 = 4 > without having any self involved, and you will feel like that really means > you know something. > > But you won't know what it is to have the answer to 2 + 2 without any > continuity involved, and without any caring whether it could change to 5 > tomorrow. > > - D - > > Really? And what about typing on keyboards? Choosing words? Reading > sentences? Mating the right word with the right meaning? In which way is > that different from adding 2+2? And cooking, driving and walking?? > Are you > not doing all that right now? Huh? Cooking, driving and walking, all at the same time, right now? That'd really be a trick... would love to see that ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:39 AM Re: daily Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:31 AM > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Thought arises and departs. > > > > It didn't do anything. > > > > It didn't make some little field exist and then stop existing. > > > > It just flickered for an instant and was gone. > > > > -d- > > > > That is what I said. You say that to ad 2+2=4 there is need of someone > > to > > benefit from it. > > > > You said " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, > > stability, repeatability, predictability. > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes > > that security, who wants there to be continuity? " > > -geo- > > When you're not there to answer, can't answer, you won't have any question > either. > > You'll understand what no continuity is, because you won't have any. > > Meanwhile, you can think you've figured out that you can add 2 + 2 = 4 > without having any self involved, and you will feel like that really means > you know something. > > But you won't know what it is to have the answer to 2 + 2 without any > continuity involved, and without any caring whether it could change to 5 > tomorrow. > > - D - > > Really? And what about typing on keyboards? Choosing words? Reading > sentences? Mating the right word with the right meaning? In which way is > that different from adding 2+2? And cooking, driving and walking?? > Are > you > not doing all that right now? Huh? Cooking, driving and walking, all at the same time, right now? That'd really be a trick... would love to see that ;-). -tim- Yes me too LOL But no need. Just any of those. Is there any impediment to awareness because you are cooking? Or doing anything? Does awareness abhors certain activities like walking, driving or typing? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:25 AM Re: daily Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > What is it like to feel a self, and not to feel a self, and how is that > difference determined? > -d- > > First, this can only be answered by one who does not have such belief - > evidently. > W/O such a limiting belief, consciousnes is understood in its impersonal > limitedness as time and space. > With the belief one lives witin a body looking out to an outside world - > much like walking in a labirinth. > I know you have an avalanche of words to oppose against these lines... let > it come. :>)) > -geo- Unless you die, you won't know this truth. You can speculate endlessly. The beliefs seem to convey something, and you want to put it together. It's to no avail. You must fail. And fall apart. The whole structure goes. Then, now, knowing. - D - And then you must avoid certain actions like aditions and subtractions and chairs because those are not accepted by awareness. Sure. Or is life in any mode awareness already, has always been? Is that not so? It is. You may cook, add....even take square roots and make integrations...and awareness is what is. It is silly to discriminate what type of activities one can undertake that are more suited for awareness to be. OK...now tell me that I must die as you have. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:45 AM Re: daily Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:31 AM > > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Thought arises and departs. > > > > > > It didn't do anything. > > > > > > It didn't make some little field exist and then stop existing. > > > > > > It just flickered for an instant and was gone. > > > > > > -d- > > > > > > That is what I said. You say that to ad 2+2=4 there is need of someone > > > to > > > benefit from it. > > > > > > You said " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, > > > stability, repeatability, predictability. > > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who > > > likes > > > that security, who wants there to be continuity? " > > > -geo- > > > > When you're not there to answer, can't answer, you won't have any > > question > > either. > > > > You'll understand what no continuity is, because you won't have any. > > > > Meanwhile, you can think you've figured out that you can add 2 + 2 = 4 > > without having any self involved, and you will feel like that really > > means > > you know something. > > > > But you won't know what it is to have the answer to 2 + 2 without any > > continuity involved, and without any caring whether it could change to 5 > > tomorrow. > > > > - D - > > > > Really? And what about typing on keyboards? Choosing words? Reading > > sentences? Mating the right word with the right meaning? In which way is > > that different from adding 2+2? And cooking, driving and walking?? > Are > > you > > not doing all that right now? > > Huh? Cooking, driving and walking, all at the same time, right > now? That'd really be a trick... would love to see that ;-). P.S. that's basically what Dan meant by 'continuity'. By suggesting all those things and then saying " are you not doing all that, right now? " you're assuming continuity, as though " right now " means " isn't there a you there that can do all those things? " . But the actual " right now " doesn't involve any " me " . -tim- I think that is it yes. Everytime dan chooses some event as an impediment to awareness he is sleeping. We have been through this thing as walking in streets, sitting on chairs, typing keyboards and now adding 2+2. Nothing is not awareness. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:45 AM > > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:31 AM > > > > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thought arises and departs. > > > > > > > > > > It didn't do anything. > > > > > > > > > > It didn't make some little field exist and then stop existing. > > > > > > > > > > It just flickered for an instant and was gone. > > > > > > > > > > -d- > > > > > > > > > > That is what I said. You say that to ad 2+2=4 there is need of someone > > > > > to > > > > > benefit from it. > > > > > > > > > > You said " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, > > > > > stability, repeatability, predictability. > > > > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who > > > > > likes > > > > > that security, who wants there to be continuity? " > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > When you're not there to answer, can't answer, you won't have any > > > > question > > > > either. > > > > > > > > You'll understand what no continuity is, because you won't have any. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, you can think you've figured out that you can add 2 + 2 = 4 > > > > without having any self involved, and you will feel like that really > > > > means > > > > you know something. > > > > > > > > But you won't know what it is to have the answer to 2 + 2 without any > > > > continuity involved, and without any caring whether it could change to 5 > > > > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Really? And what about typing on keyboards? Choosing words? Reading > > > > sentences? Mating the right word with the right meaning? In which way is > > > > that different from adding 2+2? And cooking, driving and walking?? > Are > > > > you > > > > not doing all that right now? > > > > > > Huh? Cooking, driving and walking, all at the same time, right > > > now? That'd really be a trick... would love to see that ;-). > > > > P.S. that's basically what Dan meant by 'continuity'. By suggesting all > > those things and then saying " are you not doing all that, right now? " you're > > assuming continuity, as though " right now " means " isn't there a you there > > that can do all those things? " . > > > > But the actual " right now " doesn't involve any " me " . > > -tim- > > > > I think that is it yes. Everytime dan chooses some event as an impediment to > > awareness he is sleeping. > > I've never once gotten the impression that Dan chose some event that's an impediment to awareness. > > That was Geo's interpretation of Dan's writing. > > We have been through this thing as walking in > > streets, sitting on chairs, typing keyboards and now adding 2+2. Nothing is > > not awareness. > > -geo- > > Dan never even remotely suggested otherwise. > > In fact, he's stated directly and succinctly that awareness is all > there is. P.S. be aware that the 'Dan' you're addressing, the continuous self you're picturing, is a mental construct. It's your own self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Yes. Some don t like the word " now " . Never mind. Non-fragmented > being....Even continuity to some extent is not obstacle. Assumed continuity is fragmentation. > Without SOME > continuity we could not live. Not as a continuous 'me', anyway. Not as we know it. > The trouble is the continuity of some inner > entity. > -geo- The inner entity is the only continuity there is. Thoughts arise now, discontinously, and we can live just fine. Dan is right, until one 'knows' this directly, it's all speculation. Which is perfectly OK, but it's helpful to be aware that one is speculating, imagining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Dan never even remotely suggested otherwise. > > In fact, he's stated directly and succinctly that awareness is all there is. > -tim > == > Really? > > dan wrote: " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, > stability, repeatability, predictability. > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes that > security, who wants there to be continuity? > -d- > and then.... > > To whom does the number 2 represent a quantity? > Where is it known what a quantity is, that is represented by a number?> > Who learned in the past how to add, and from whence is the structure > derived that allows an equation to make sense? > -d- > == > -geo- You don't seem to be aware to what extent you're " reading in " your own interpretation. One hundred percent. If I'm wrong, why not wait to ask Dan what he meant, instead of making so many assumptions? But I'm not wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Is there the need of a > > belief on a self to add 2+2? or not. Be direct. > > -geo- > > > > The self isn't something you believe on. > > > > It is a structuring of beliefs based on continuity, on time. > > > > You only die to this when there is no other option for you. > > > > Otherwise, you will maintain your continuity as best you're able. > > > > - D - > > > > Yes...but that is not the same subject. > > I want to stay on my subject. > > I want to keep my focus. > > Don't distract me by bringing up something extraneous, like the death of this center and the conceptual world it inhabits. > > > > > To add 2+2 must you wait for awareness to go to the kitchen make some coffee, so that you can make the addition? > > I am going to stay on my subject, and I will get you to admit that I'm right. > > > Then when awareness comes back cup in hands you pretend you did not add? Or is ANY activity, event, thing, arrising..... being AS consciousness IN awareness?? > > Each perceptual moment is timeless, arises without coming into existence, dissolves without anything going out of existence. > > There never is or has been any self-center in existence, so the problem you are struggling with is a false problem. > > You want to know that there can be a person functioning with no self-center, doing math problems, responding to the needs of the moment. > > I understand why you want to know this, because it has been discussed so often - it is the " spiritual " wish - to be such a person, to know such a person, to bring about such people in the world. > > But this concept of a person with no-self, different from other people with selves, is a self-serving contradictory conceptualization. > > If the center truly goes, concepts like this about special persons who don't have a center, also go. Because such a concept is irrelevant. Who would it be important to? If you have no center you are investing in continuing, do you want to keep a concept " I am a person with no center, unlike other people who have centers? " Give me a break! That is an unnecessary self-centered concept; no wonder it gets promoted so much in " spiritual " circles. Spiritual circles are invested in hiding and denying the self-center, while preserving it through the development of a " spiritual outlook " ... > > > Are there certain activities that perclude awareness? Like walking on a street - because there is localization and recognition, sitting on a chair - same reason, adding 2+2 - the same reason?? No. ANY thing is already awareness in any way and the only thing that could prevent it is something called a self - that is nonexitent. What is your objection towards additions, multiplications, streets and chairs? Dont take this personally. > > If you really believe that I object to math and chairs, or that I'm saying that one aware can't be aware of math or chairs, you've utterly misconstrued what I've been saying. > > I'm used to it, having posted frequently on the internet. > > Unless the attempt to continue a conceptual center truly dies, then everything heard will be heard through the lens of self-validation. Every interaction will involve attempted self-validation. > > There are so many different ways and means for self-validation to occur: spiritual ways, material ways. Everything from war to making love, setting out to help the poor to making money, being right about everything to being really humble, asserting one's existence to suicide. But all strategies to self-validate. > > Until there isn't any strategy. > > - D - > It's best to stay at the place of being a self with no center....if you can. That is the highest and most refined perspective that the conceptual entity can reach. That is being an adult in a world of children. Stay there if you can......and you will experience the best of both worlds. Just beyond that is the Great Nothingness....the " solid wall " of Nisargadatta. And that is not at all what anyone could possibly want. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:33 AM > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > It is the same as saying that there is an unitary > > seeing/being/doing, no fragmentation within the field. When you say " for > > example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, > > repeatability, predictability. Who wants these qualities, who benefits > > from > > these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be > > continuity? " , you are implicitly stating that there is no way to live in > > this world in a non-fragmented way. > > > > No, I'm not stating that at all. > > -d- > > > > dan wrote: " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, > > stability, repeatability, predictability. > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes > > that security, who wants there to be continuity? > > > > Are you not implying the existence of some entity? > > -geo- > > I'm saying understand the motivation for developing a system of mathematics. > > It would never have been developed without someone benefitting from the > order it provided. > > The work would not have gone into it. > > I'm saying understand human nature. > > Unless you undertand human nature, and particularly its fear, and are that > fear, you won't die to it. > > Dying to the known is not a bunch of ideas. > > It is to die. > > - D - > > And after I am dead will I be unable to add 2+2? > -geo- There isn't any before or after to this death, Geo. One dies to before and after. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:39 AM > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:31 AM > > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Thought arises and departs. > > > > > > It didn't do anything. > > > > > > It didn't make some little field exist and then stop existing. > > > > > > It just flickered for an instant and was gone. > > > > > > -d- > > > > > > That is what I said. You say that to ad 2+2=4 there is need of someone > > > to > > > benefit from it. > > > > > > You said " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, > > > stability, repeatability, predictability. > > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes > > > that security, who wants there to be continuity? " > > > -geo- > > > > When you're not there to answer, can't answer, you won't have any question > > either. > > > > You'll understand what no continuity is, because you won't have any. > > > > Meanwhile, you can think you've figured out that you can add 2 + 2 = 4 > > without having any self involved, and you will feel like that really means > > you know something. > > > > But you won't know what it is to have the answer to 2 + 2 without any > > continuity involved, and without any caring whether it could change to 5 > > tomorrow. > > > > - D - > > > > Really? And what about typing on keyboards? Choosing words? Reading > > sentences? Mating the right word with the right meaning? In which way is > > that different from adding 2+2? And cooking, driving and walking?? > Are > > you > > not doing all that right now? > > Huh? Cooking, driving and walking, all at the same time, right now? That'd > really be a trick... would love to see that ;-). > -tim- > > Yes me too LOL > But no need. Just any of those. Is there any impediment to awareness because > you are cooking? Or doing anything? Does awareness abhors certain activities > like walking, driving or typing? > -geo- Or thinking nationalistically? Or murdering your neighbor for a few dollars? Or hating everyone who looks at you the wrong way? Or being so scared of losing everything you have? No, awareness abhors nothing, because everything arising anywhere and everywhere arises through/as/of this awareness, which is nothing. No wonder you aspire to being a person who has no center, who is different from other people who have centers. That way, you can have your cake and eat it, too. You can be realized and clear, and enjoy your life, and you don't have to get messy. No wonder this idea is so popular in spiritual circles. You don't have to be the awareness/nothing through which the entire world is arising as it is. You don't have to be choicelessly aware of the whole deal, the entire mutually-co-arising conceptuality of human experiencing. I don't blame you. Who would want this? It's only when there is no choice involved, and no way to hold to any conceptuality (including the concept of a person who has no self), that one implodes timelessly as this awareness/nothing. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Saturday, August 15, 2009 3:41 PM Re: daily Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:33 AM > Re: daily Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > It is the same as saying that there is an unitary > > seeing/being/doing, no fragmentation within the field. When you say " for > > example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, stability, > > repeatability, predictability. Who wants these qualities, who benefits > > from > > these qualities, who likes that security, who wants there to be > > continuity? " , you are implicitly stating that there is no way to live in > > this world in a non-fragmented way. > > > > No, I'm not stating that at all. > > -d- > > > > dan wrote: " For example, knowing that 2+2 = 4 provides a sense of order, > > stability, repeatability, predictability. > > Who wants these qualities, who benefits from these qualities, who likes > > that security, who wants there to be continuity? > > > > Are you not implying the existence of some entity? > > -geo- > > I'm saying understand the motivation for developing a system of > mathematics. > > It would never have been developed without someone benefitting from the > order it provided. > > The work would not have gone into it. > > I'm saying understand human nature. > > Unless you undertand human nature, and particularly its fear, and are that > fear, you won't die to it. > > Dying to the known is not a bunch of ideas. > > It is to die. > > - D - > > And after I am dead will I be unable to add 2+2? > -geo- There isn't any before or after to this death, Geo. One dies to before and after. - D - One dies to all that and can do even derivations or study physics. Localization is not an impediment at all. -geo- 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.