Guest guest Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 " The memory of the past unfulfilled desires traps energy, which manifests itself as a person. When its charge gets exhausted, the person dies. Unfulfilled desires are carried over into the next birth. Self-identification with body creates ever-fresh desires and there is no end to them unless this mechanism of bondage is clearly seen. It is clarity that is liberating, for you cannot abandon desire unless its causes and effects are clearly seen. I do not say that the same person is reborn. It dies, and dies for good. But its memories remain and their desires and fears. They supply the energy for a new person. " --p. 381 of /I Am That/ (1984) Stanley Sobottka cited this passage above, at OAStudyGroup Just thought I'd share, since it fits the current topic. This explanation seems supportive of AC's notion of getting to the root of suffering, BTW. Smiles, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:57 PM Nisargadatta on Death, Suffering and Rebirth " The memory of the past unfulfilled desires traps energy, which manifests itself as a person. When its charge gets exhausted, the person dies. Unfulfilled desires are carried over into the next birth. Self-identification with body creates ever-fresh desires and there is no end to them unless this mechanism of bondage is clearly seen. It is clarity that is liberating, for you cannot abandon desire unless its causes and effects are clearly seen. I do not say that the same person is reborn. It dies, and dies for good. But its memories remain and their desires and fears. They supply the energy for a new person. " --p. 381 of /I Am That/ (1984) == What i dont get in this is: what this " new person " that is born has to do with the present person that desires? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 20:06:56 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 20:21:06 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam Trungpa ?) was asked, "What is it that is reborn?" I believe his simple singular reponse was "Neuroses!" My take is that unresolved energy patterns become (or takes on the particular "form") that is "one's" so-called "next birth". "Birth" to me means to "take form" as in "a wave is born" and a wave "dies" (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even before the body dies. Michael < "The memory of the past unfulfilled< desires traps energy, which manifests itself as a person. When its< charge gets exhausted, the person dies. Unfulfilled desires are carried over into the next birth. Self-identification with body creates ever-fresh desires and there is no end to them unless this mechanism of bondage is < clearly seen. It is clarity that is liberating, for you cannot abandon desire unless its causes and effects are clearly seen. I do not say that the same person is reborn. It dies, and dies for good. But its memories remain < and their desires and fears. They supply the energy for a new person."--p. 381 of /I Am That/ (1984)< Stanley Sobottka cited this passage above, at OAStudyGroup< Just thought I'd share, since it fits the current topic. This explanation seems supportive of AC's notion of getting to the root of suffering, BTW.< Smiles,< Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam Trungpa ?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple singular reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy patterns become (or takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's " so-called " next birth " . " Birth " to me means to " take form " as in " a wave is born " and a wave " dies " (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even before the body dies. > > Michael Hi Michael - Yes. The body is an imaginary unit. It actually is in continual flux. What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of ongoing unity? One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. " Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view. And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s> Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as you suggest. And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " - so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with it. Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ... So what? It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation. So what? It tends to get exaggerated by human thinking processes and states of fear/anxiety so that identity can want to promote its extended survival through things like greed, deceit, harm of self and others, and war. So what? One observes this movement momentarily, and understands that there is no volition involved, so labeling it negatively seems beside the point. It simply is what is happening here, now, as observed directly. And, clear observation of this shows what it is and what it is not. It is a dynamic involved in fabricating an imagined reality around a conceptualization of continuity that results from " biological programming " translated into conceptuality. It is not ever an actual existence or thing. And thus, with a moment's clarity on this issue - one rests. One is free, and life as is, is freedom. Life unfolds as it is. As freedom. As it is. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam Trungpa ?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple singular reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy patterns become (or takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's " so-called " next birth " . " Birth " to me means to " take form " as in " a wave is born " and a wave " dies " (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even before the body dies. > > > > Michael > > Hi Michael - > > Yes. > > The body is an imaginary unit. > > It actually is in continual flux. > > What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of ongoing unity? > > One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. " > > Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view. And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s> > > Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as you suggest. > > And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " - so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with it. > > Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ... > > So what? > > It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation. > > So what? > > It tends to get exaggerated by human thinking processes and states of fear/anxiety so that identity can want to promote its extended survival through things like greed, deceit, harm of self and others, and war. > > So what? > > One observes this movement momentarily, and understands that there is no volition involved, so labeling it negatively seems beside the point. > > It simply is what is happening here, now, as observed directly. > > And, clear observation of this shows what it is and what it is not. > > It is a dynamic involved in fabricating an imagined reality around a conceptualization of continuity that results from " biological programming " translated into conceptuality. > > It is not ever an actual existence or thing. > > And thus, with a moment's clarity on this issue - one rests. > > One is free, and life as is, is freedom. > > Life unfolds as it is. > > As freedom. > > As it is. > > - D - > Lol. All this deconstruction going on when in fact, life is passing us by quicker than any *I* can conceive. Enjoy it my friends, I guarantee you only nothing fades quicker and lasts forever. ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam Trungpa ?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple singular reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy patterns become (or takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's " so-called " next birth " . " Birth " to me means to " take form " as in " a wave is born " and a wave " dies " (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even before the body dies. > > > > > > Michael > > > > Hi Michael - > > > > Yes. > > > > The body is an imaginary unit. > > > > It actually is in continual flux. > > > > What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of ongoing unity? > > > > One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. " > > > > Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view. And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're incarnating as a neurosis. > > Probably, you're right <s> > > Fwiw, " biological tendencies toward survival " doesn't necessarily work that well here. > > It suggests that one is this body, and is dictated by these tendencies. D: The bodily life is apparent as human being. Or, are you saying there is a body having a life that exists separately from who you are? > It plays into the " hardwired " notion as well, which I've never much cared for. D: Do you have a choice about how to breathe? If your eyelids open, do they have a choice about responding to bright sunlight? > But, label as ya will. D: Okay, thanks, I will. All words are labels. > From here, " neuroses " points to the 'psychological self', which makes more sense as something to take a look at. D: Do you think there is some kind of " psyche " that has a separate existence from " the body " ? > In any case, the above quote from Trungpa (if in fact it was him) is referring to " reincarnation " following physical death, if I'm not mistaken -- for which there is no indication at all. D: Well, the discussion was about incarnation moment to moment. Life after life is basically the same as moment after moment. And with no " before " or " after " - such questions are moot. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam Trungpa ?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple singular reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy patterns become (or takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's " so-called " next birth " . " Birth " to me means to " take form " as in " a wave is born " and a wave " dies " (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even before the body dies. > > > > > > Michael > > > > Hi Michael - > > > > Yes. > > > > The body is an imaginary unit. > > > > It actually is in continual flux. > > > > What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of ongoing unity? > > > > One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. " > > > > Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view. And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s> > > > > Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as you suggest. > > > > And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " - so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with it. > > > > Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ... > > > > So what? > > > > It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation. > > > > So what? > > > > It tends to get exaggerated by human thinking processes and states of fear/anxiety so that identity can want to promote its extended survival through things like greed, deceit, harm of self and others, and war. > > > > So what? > > > > One observes this movement momentarily, and understands that there is no volition involved, so labeling it negatively seems beside the point. > > > > It simply is what is happening here, now, as observed directly. > > > > And, clear observation of this shows what it is and what it is not. > > > > It is a dynamic involved in fabricating an imagined reality around a conceptualization of continuity that results from " biological programming " translated into conceptuality. > > > > It is not ever an actual existence or thing. > > > > And thus, with a moment's clarity on this issue - one rests. > > > > One is free, and life as is, is freedom. > > > > Life unfolds as it is. > > > > As freedom. > > > > As it is. > > > > - D - > > > > > Lol. All this deconstruction going on when in fact, life is passing us by quicker than any *I* can conceive. D: I'm not deconstructing anything. Although, apparently, that's how it seems to you. > Enjoy it my friends, I guarantee you only nothing fades quicker and lasts forever. D: Your guarantee won't get me even a cup of coffee. Excuse me if I don't rely on it. Life fades compared with what? Lasts forever ... I'm clueless what you're talking about or what " forever " even represents to you. How long is a moment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:29 PM Re:Nisargadatta on Death, Suffering and Rebirth Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam > Trungpa ?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple > singular reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy > patterns become (or takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's " > so-called " next birth " . " Birth " to me means to " take form " as in " a wave > is born " and a wave " dies " (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to > me that this birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always > already happening from moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now > this, and now this) even before the body dies. > > Michael Hi Michael - Yes. The body is an imaginary unit. It actually is in continual flux. What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of ongoing unity? One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. " -dan- What is imaginary about the body is assuming that it is not changing physically, the cells. But what defines a body are the sensorial inputs. So I ask what is imaginary about feeling pain in the toes? Feeling pain as I hit a finger with a hammer? It is ongoing for tomorrow I will feel the same pain and next year again... if I don't learn to hammer correctly. A body is not imaginary. What is is the idea that it is MY body (personally), and mainly to be identified with it to the point of believing I AM it. So " biological tendencies toward survival. " keep the body relatively healthy in an ongoing manner and they are necessary. It is when there is an attachment to those tendencies as " ME " that delusion is. -geo- Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view. And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s> Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as you suggest. And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " - so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with it. Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ... So what? It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation. -dan- The body has no actual existence? Or the body as some independent entity as ME? A baby cries to feed or when it is cold or too warm. The baby is thinking up his body as soon as it is born? Nah....the body is already what it is: a body that feels and has needs. There is a syndrome where babies don't have sensations, they cant feel pain..... they die. The body dies! -geo- So what? It tends to get exaggerated by human thinking processes and states of fear/anxiety so that identity can want to promote its extended survival through things like greed, deceit, harm of self and others, and war. So what? One observes this movement momentarily, and understands that there is no volition involved, so labeling it negatively seems beside the point. It simply is what is happening here, now, as observed directly. And, clear observation of this shows what it is and what it is not. It is a dynamic involved in fabricating an imagined reality around a conceptualization of continuity that results from " biological programming " translated into conceptuality. It is not ever an actual existence or thing. And thus, with a moment's clarity on this issue - one rests. One is free, and life as is, is freedom. Life unfolds as it is. As freedom. As it is. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam Trungpa ?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple singular reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy patterns become (or takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's " so-called " next birth " . " Birth " to me means to " take form " as in " a wave is born " and a wave " dies " (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even before the body dies. > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > Hi Michael - > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > The body is an imaginary unit. > > > > > > It actually is in continual flux. > > > > > > What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of ongoing unity? > > > > > > One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. " > > > > > > Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view. And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s> > > > > > > Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as you suggest. > > > > > > And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " - so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with it. > > > > > > Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ... > > > > > > So what? > > > > > > It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation. > > > > > > So what? > > > > > > It tends to get exaggerated by human thinking processes and states of fear/anxiety so that identity can want to promote its extended survival through things like greed, deceit, harm of self and others, and war. > > > > > > So what? > > > > > > One observes this movement momentarily, and understands that there is no volition involved, so labeling it negatively seems beside the point. > > > > > > It simply is what is happening here, now, as observed directly. > > > > > > And, clear observation of this shows what it is and what it is not. > > > > > > It is a dynamic involved in fabricating an imagined reality around a conceptualization of continuity that results from " biological programming " translated into conceptuality. > > > > > > It is not ever an actual existence or thing. > > > > > > And thus, with a moment's clarity on this issue - one rests. > > > > > > One is free, and life as is, is freedom. > > > > > > Life unfolds as it is. > > > > > > As freedom. > > > > > > As it is. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > Lol. All this deconstruction going on when in fact, life is > passing us by quicker than any *I* can conceive. > > D: I'm not deconstructing anything. Although, apparently, that's > how it seems to you. Not to mention, how is " life passing us by? " " Posting on a message board " is just as much " life " as " not posting on a message board " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 The body is an imaginary unit. -dan-The body has no actual existence? Or the body as some independent entity as ME? A baby cries to feed or when it is cold or too warm. The baby is imagining his body as soon as it is born?Nah....the body is already what it is: a body that feels and has needs. There is a syndrome where babies don't have sensations, they cant feel pain..... they die. The body dies!-geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Labeling these tendencies as "neurosis" seems a derogatory point of view. And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s>Anway, this "incarnation" process is observed directly, momentarily, just as you suggest.And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all "biological units" - so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with it.Yes, it tends to "fabricate an identity" ...So what?It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation.-dan- Are you saying that all "biological units" tend to "fabricate an identity" around an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation? Dogs, cats, cows - as "biological units" - have such a self-being? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > G: What is imaginary about the body is assuming that it is not changing > physically, the cells. > But what defines a body are the sensorial inputs. Hi Geo - I would say that body is defined conceptually, cognitively. There is nothing actual to input sensation into, until sensations form as a cognitively recognizable body feeling. But still, this is sensing, is sensation. Sensation is used to build up an idea that there is something sensation is " input " to. Thought retains an image of something that sensation is put into. But thought is sensed, is a form of sensing. Indeed, the body/mind system, its perceived environment, is the sensing. The objects formed are cognized aspects of sensing. The cognitions are sensed. So, the body is defined according to whatever thought-form is pictured of a body being defined - although the thought-form is sensed, and there is no getting from sensation to something else, that exists outside of sensing. >G: So I ask what is imaginary > about feeling pain > in the toes? Feeling pain as I hit a finger with a hammer? It is ongoing for > tomorrow I will feel the > same pain and next year again... if I don't learn to hammer correctly. A > body is not imaginary. In Geo's thought, the body is not imaginary. What is, or isn't imaginary, depends on how thought defines what is actual. So, the term " imaginary " has no set or absolute meaning - you define it in contrast with what you define as " real. " And the contrast between real and imaginary can't be more real than the thought-form that provides the contrast. So, what is it that thought can't grasp? You can't fully or truly answer this in words, because words are formulated by/through thought. While sometimes it might be useful to refer to this as " nothing " (because it doesn't show up as a particular thought-form), I might call it " energy/awareness " or " energy/awareness field " -- while acknowledging such terms are indications of what thought can't grasp, and yet what thought is never outside of. One is aware beyond the thought-form arising/dissolving. Because one is aware beyond the thought-form, one can discuss thought and its limits, or can talk about " nothing " ( " no-thing " ). Still, one can't say in any meaningful way what this is, because words aren't independent of thought or beyond thought. One can indicate, one can detect resonance through words - or not. That is all. One can't convey or give what this is. When you have the thought/feeling arising: " hammer struck. pain is felt. this pain is real. " The reality of that interpretation is as real as the thought/feeling arising. And what is thought in the instant? It is simply energy movement. And what is sensing as this moment? Energy movement. Not " energy movement " as defined by thought - the actual energy movement, which can't be described, which involves no separation. And this is the actuality of " body " - constant movement of energy. Including thought, and the sense of reality being imparted by the sensations occurring and as sensing/thought-forms ... " now " " now " " now " -- and the sensings are energy movement. the energy movement is aware. trying to put this into words will never be done accurately, because it is beyond thought's grasp and formulation. > What is is the idea that it is MY body (personally), and mainly to be > identified with it to the point > of believing I AM it. Well, beliefs aren't developed independently from " body " - it is the same energy/sensing/thought field. So, you could just as well say that " I am " arises from " body " as vice versa. Seems to me that " body/feeling " is a more primary thought-form than even " I am " - there is more thought-differentiation involved in being able to hold the thought-form " I am " in contrast with " body-feeling. " The " body/feeling " that is sensed becomes " my body " as thought forms complexify and that thought can be maintained as " my body feeling " and not just " body-feeling " or " sensing happening " - " Identification " is only meaningful as long as one assumes " someone to identify or disidentify. " As " energy-field-being-aware " there is no identification or disidentification that is relevant to discuss. Just is. > So " biological tendencies toward survival. " keep the body relatively healthy > in an ongoing manner > and they are necessary. Yes. It's just that the impression of the ongoing body is imagined (imaged, formed). All forms continuing over time are imagined, all imaginings involve form. And yes, to keep an intact body-sense over time, biological tendencies toward survival are involved. They are " patterned in " to the " body patternings " ... > It is when there is an attachment to those > tendencies as " ME " that delusion is. Delusion is also an imagined category of thought. One living as the totality energy/awareness field understands no fragmentation as ever being the case, and delusion is not a concern. Delusion is conceptually defined in contrast with non-delusion or actuality, in terms of thought-form only. What actually is, involves no delusion, because there is no separately existing being interpreting it, which could be delusional vs. accurate. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > The body is an imaginary unit. > -dan- > >G: The body has no actual existence? D: That's not what was being said. G: Or the body as some independent > entity as ME? D: Just the body as a definable separable entity. Not necessarily even as ME. G: A baby cries to feed or when it is cold or too warm. The > baby is imagining his body as soon as it is born? D: Yes - only the baby isn't doing it. The baby is the doing of it. There are basic feeling/sensings associated to form " body feeling. " There are basic sensory coordinatings to allow " instinctive crying " to happen. >G: Nah....the body is already what it is: a body that feels and has needs. D: You can leave it at that, or you can " see " more depth - the energy-field-awareness that is " body-ing " that is " baby-ing " ... >G: There is a syndrome where babies don't have sensations, they cant feel > pain..... they die. The body dies! D: You aren't accounting that " baby not having sensation " is an observation of someone, is a thought-form being maintained in relation to an observation. " Baby not feeling, baby dying " is a sensing of an observer. For some reason you're not including that - and you're implying that there's a separately existing baby-thing out there that has a syndrome and dies. Nothing has any separately of-its-own existence anywhere at any time. The field may seem to fragment - as if. As if there were separately existing observers, each with their point of view. As if there were solid, factual things that existed independently from observation - like a baby-thing existing on its own, going through an objectifiable syndrome and dying - regardless of any awareness or sensing of it. The actuality though is no separately existing baby-thing, and what one calls " baby existing " " baby having syndrome " " baby dying " are sensings, are thought-formings, all included in/as/through the energy-movement field, which is not divided or divisible. So, baby dying, tree growing, star going nova, bird flying, events ten million years ago, events ten million years in the future, events on Alpha Centauri - undivided energy/awareness/ field. Understood instantly, no time involved - the energy itself is the knowing/being - and is unknown to thought. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > As " energy-field-being-aware " there is no identification or > disidentification that is relevant to discuss. Just is. I kinda like " just -ing " . " Just is " could give an impression that " something is " , continuously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Enjoying the discussion... Awareness discussing/'learning' the difference between true and false, between conceptual and actual. IMV, it's particularly helpful for awareness to realize that it is not a mental image (or series of mental images) from an " outside observer's " (really, it's own) perspective. Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > The body is an imaginary unit. > > -dan- > > > >G: The body has no actual existence? > > D: That's not what was being said. > > G: Or the body as some independent > > entity as ME? > > D: Just the body as a definable separable entity. Not necessarily > even as ME. > > G: A baby cries to feed or when it is cold or too warm. The > > baby is imagining his body as soon as it is born? > > D: Yes - only the baby isn't doing it. The baby is the > doing of it. > > There are basic feeling/sensings associated > to form " body feeling. " There are basic sensory > coordinatings to allow " instinctive crying " to happen. > > >G: Nah....the body is already what it is: a body that feels and has needs. > > D: You can leave it at that, or you can " see " more depth - > the energy-field-awareness that is " body-ing " that is > " baby-ing " ... > > >G: There is a syndrome where babies don't have sensations, they cant feel > > pain..... they die. The body dies! > > D: You aren't accounting that " baby not having sensation " is > an observation of someone, is a thought-form being maintained > in relation to an observation. > > " Baby not feeling, baby dying " is a sensing of an observer. > > For some reason you're not including that - and you're implying > that there's a separately existing baby-thing out there that > has a syndrome and dies. > > Nothing has any separately of-its-own existence anywhere > at any time. > > The field may seem to fragment - as if. As if there were > separately existing observers, each with their point of view. > As if there were solid, factual things that existed independently > from observation - like a baby-thing existing on its own, > going through an objectifiable syndrome and dying - regardless > of any awareness or sensing of it. > > The actuality though is no separately existing baby-thing, > and what one calls " baby existing " " baby having syndrome " > " baby dying " are sensings, are thought-formings, all included > in/as/through the energy-movement field, which is not divided > or divisible. > > So, baby dying, tree growing, star going nova, bird flying, > events ten million years ago, events ten million years in the > future, events on Alpha Centauri - undivided energy/awareness/ > field. > > Understood instantly, no time involved - the energy itself > is the knowing/being - and is unknown to thought. > > - Dan - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view. > And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a > neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without > telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume > that you're incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s> > > Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as > you suggest. > > And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " - > so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with > it. > > Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ... > > So what? > > It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no > actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation. > -dan- > > Are you saying that all " biological units " tend to " fabricate an identity " around > an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting > and fragmentation? Dogs, cats, cows - as " biological units " - have such a self-being? Well, first of all, let's be clear that this is my formulation - I am sharing a thought-configuration through words. I'm not pretending that the words I'm sharing contain some kind of ultimate truth about what a cow is or isn't. Also, I'm saying there is no really existing separable biological unit anywhere - it's a convention of speech that may be helpful to communicate - but that is all. Given all that - yes, it makes sense to me that any biologically definable organic unit that survives over time and fends for its survival, involves what could be called a " form charge " - an energy charge that forms as an apparent being. The sensing of continuity as a unit that needs to ingest and excrete requires a sensing of self - not necessarily at a verbal, intellectual level. Because there is a feeling level that doesn't require brain activity - it is basic sensing of need, as, for example, need to eat, or need to excrete, or need for warmth, or need for defense. It is what humans call " instinctual " or " automatic activity " because higher brain functions aren't involved. But humans have it too - and one senses this way, and one understands that " biological units " (fictional though they may be) have a lot in common with each other. And " survival instincts and tendencies " is an aspect of this commonality, as is " felt-sense of continuing. " This sensing of continuity occurs at the cellular level, as the brain is a communication among millions of cells - the brain develops it into fantastic complexity, but the brain evolved from cells in communion, and the cells pool their information, including information about what is felt as continuing form. So a very complex feeling-sensing-thinking formation develops as the human being, from the " building block " of the cell, the basic " unit " of ingesting and excreting and continuing. Very likely a reader will receive these words from me skeptically, doubt that I have any clue what occurs on a cellular level, say this is a made-up story - and I'm okay with that. All our stories are made up anyway. But this is my sensing of it - no more claim is being made than that. You mention dogs. Dogs seem to me to be able to feel rejected or welcomed, develop a sense of loyalty, make eye contact - this is why humans like them as pets - because their sense of self seems understandable to a human, and a relationship can form that is straightforward and clear. I've known people whose relationship with their pet dog was extremely emotionally important to them, and more straightforward and less conflict than with people in their lives. Known a few people with cats who relate like this, too. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > As " energy-field-being-aware " there is no identification or > > disidentification that is relevant to discuss. Just is. > > I kinda like " just -ing " . > > " Just is " could give an impression that " something is " , continuously. ing-ing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As " energy-field-being-aware " there is no identification or > > > disidentification that is relevant to discuss. Just is. > > > > I kinda like " just -ing " . > > > > " Just is " could give an impression that " something is " , continuously. > > ing-ing > Ding ding... Ding-a-ling ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > So, what is it that thought can't grasp? You can't fully or truly > answer this in words, because words are formulated by/through thought. While sometimes it might be useful to refer to this as " nothing " (because it doesn't show up as a particular thought-form), I might call it " energy/awareness " or " energy/awareness field " -- while acknowledging such terms are indications of what thought can't grasp, > and yet what thought is never outside of. > > One is aware beyond the thought-form arising/dissolving. I found it useful to get at this through exploring attachment to a particular thought and then asking, " Who am I without that thought? " (Byron Katie) Like a peering under the carpet. That's how I fell apart. Kept looking. > What actually is, involves no delusion, because there is no > separately existing being interpreting it, which could be delusional > vs. accurate. Is that why your words contain little energy resonance for me? This question is awkward. I am accustomed to " reading " people and connecting with something. I reach out for that in you, and feels like thin air. Have I been connecting with their fears? My fears to theirs? Or is the nothing I see in you a reflection of the nothing in (of course not in) me? This me-you is not accurate. Doing the best I can with words and hoping you can intuit. My mind tells me Dan doesn't intuit because I don't feel anything from him. Can you explain that? This is this organism's habitual way of interfacing with what appears as other, and I don't get " other " from you. I find that mightily interesting. Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " julesmiel " <julesmiel wrote: > This is this organism's habitual way of interfacing with what appears > as other, and I don't get " other " from you. I find that mightily > interesting. Actually, this is the same experience I've had with self-inquiry. (Yeah, the I experiencing. Words!) I poke and look. Eventually, I started finding nothing. Like I tried to find something to bounce back from, and nothing. Same with you. Not getting the bounceback. Nothing there! Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 > The body is an imaginary unit. > -dan- > >G: The body has no actual existence? D: That's not what was being said. G: Or the body as some independent > entity as ME? D: Just the body as a definable separable entity. Not necessarily even as ME. G: A baby cries to feed or when it is cold or too warm. The > baby is imagining his body as soon as it is born? D: Yes - only the baby isn't doing it. The baby is the doing of it. geo: You mean the body is " imagined " in/as awareness? Like anything manifested? I agree with that. You are calling the waves, the patterns... as imagings. So your statement " the body is an imaginary unit " is just confirming the fact that everything and anything are no more then such patterns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Sleeping baby in my imaginary arms. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > D: Yes - only the baby isn't doing it. The baby is the > doing of it. I'm doing it. And then it's so okay. I can do suffering. And it's not even suffering. Is it an error to identify with the everything, to feel this love? Dan, do you love us all with an unbelievably squirrelly and ridiculous and profound love? Did you do that first and then normalize because it's just more efficient when it flows quietly like water? I could have loved this love all along, only I became really convinced that it was inappropriate. The I was born. It happens to every child. It sounds mushy, but it's the living reality this I experiences with two imaginary children. They would not get this language here, and I'm more accustomed to their language, which is beyond the spoken. They generally trust the union and sniff bs at the separation. (That dichotomy is inaccurate, but the usual word thing going on.) Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " julesmiel " <julesmiel wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > So, what is it that thought can't grasp? You can't fully or truly > > answer this in words, because words are formulated by/through thought. While sometimes it might be useful to refer to this as " nothing " (because it doesn't show up as a particular thought-form), I might call it " energy/awareness " or " energy/awareness field " -- while acknowledging such terms are indications of what thought can't grasp, > and yet what thought is never outside of. > > > > One is aware beyond the thought-form arising/dissolving. > > I found it useful to get at this through exploring attachment to a particular thought and then asking, " Who am I without that thought? " (Byron Katie) > > Like a peering under the carpet. That's how I fell apart. Kept looking. > > > What actually is, involves no delusion, because there is no > > separately existing being interpreting it, which could be delusional > vs. accurate. > > Is that why your words contain little energy resonance for me? This question is awkward. I am accustomed to " reading " people and connecting with something. I reach out for that in you, and feels like thin air. Have I been connecting with their fears? My fears to theirs? D: That's an interesting question, Julie. I appreciate that - and thanks for sharing your response. > Or is the nothing I see in you a reflection of the nothing in (of course not in) me? This me-you is not accurate. Doing the best I can with words and hoping you can intuit. My mind tells me Dan doesn't intuit because I don't feel anything from him. Can you explain that? D: No. > This is this organism's habitual way of interfacing with what appears as other, and I don't get " other " from you. I find that mightily interesting. D: Cool! You don't seem to be asking anything of me that is answerable - it sounds more like the kind of question that is an opening, rather than wanting a verbalizable answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " julesmiel " <julesmiel wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " julesmiel " <julesmiel@> wrote: > > This is this organism's habitual way of interfacing with what appears > as other, and I don't get " other " from you. I find that mightily > > interesting. > > Actually, this is the same experience I've had with self-inquiry. (Yeah, the I experiencing. Words!) I poke and look. Eventually, I started finding nothing. Like I tried to find something to bounce back from, and nothing. > > Same with you. Not getting the bounceback. Nothing there! > > Julie Well, I'm sure you'll run across lots of words posted in various places, including here, about the nothing that is everything that is you that has no " you. " One limitation of words is that they are visualised, can be repeated in the brain as thought, and have form. So, words give one " something. " To understand that one is this nothing, and has been, and it could not be otherwise - is not a verbally based understanding. Although it can be expressed verbally, that expression can be misleading. It makes it seem like there is a thought-anchoring of it. In fact, the expression has to be misleading unless it is heard with understanding. And if it is heard with understanding, there is already understanding an no reliance on any particular expression! A pair o' ducks. One lives in a world of recognizable objects, people, events. One interacts and responds, memory operates, communication happens. Does nothing have any volition in any of this? Are appearances brought forth with thought about it, with a plan, with an outcome in mind? Or does something/nothing simply -ing, as some things, no-thing, even as thoughts that arise as if planning, as if strategizing ... What can be said about ing-ing? Still, it's fun, speaking as ripples in the ever-rippling nothing. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > Still, it's fun, speaking as ripples in the ever-rippling nothing. You *are* water, and I am so bold as to say you're something. No bounceback, but water. Nice. Thanks, Julie 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.