Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 23, 2010 8:50 PM Re: i am that Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " hurg@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " adithya_comming@ > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " lschwabe@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I do not get - and so far never heard any guru, any > > > > > > > > > one - > > > > > > > > > explain in a way which is satisfactory, is: why are we on > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > planet earth anyway? It is so painful so why are we here? > > > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > > > are we doing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whether the answer comes from the personal dual or the > > > > impersonal > > > > > > > nondual angle, I don't think we just want to know why we are > > > > > > > here > > > > > but > > > > > > > our motivation is how we can continue to exist and achieve > > > > > > > some > > > > sort > > > > > of > > > > > > > immortality. All spiritual teachings offer a promise of > > > > immortality. > > > > > > > Nondual teachings are more subltle and yet they serve the same > > > > > > > purpose...it's still something to hold on to for us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering that so many people are suicidal. So many commit > > > > > > > and > > > > so > > > > > many > > > > > > > attempt or contempt suicide. So many use drugs and alcohol to > > > > forget > > > > > > > their 'existence' and so many try to bury it under the noise > > > > > > > of > > > > > parties > > > > > > > etc and so many are dependent on anti-depressants, I am not > > > > > > > sure > > > > if > > > > > > > everyone is really wishing for 'immortality'. > > > > > > > Many " gurus " say that everyone is looking for happiness or > > > > > > > freedom > > > > > from > > > > > > > suffering. They further say that the true, lasting peace and > > > > > happiness > > > > > > > is to be only found within and not in external objects. This > > > > reason > > > > > > > behind spiritual inquiry I think might be truer - to find the > > > > > > > root > > > > > of > > > > > > > suffering. > > > > > > > ac > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh...so that's what " liberation " means. It's an opiate for the > > > > masses > > > > > to relieve the pain of being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Masses " ... ??? > > > > > I don't think spiritual inquiry requires a mass to do it. It is > > > > > more > > > > of > > > > > an individual inquiry in which one finds out the root of his/her > > > > > own > > > > > suffering and the reality of the entity that suffers. I am not > > > > > sure if > > > > > it is same as the Sunday mass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other difference is that while drugs work primarily by making you > > > > 'forget' and thus avoid facing the mental anguish, spiritual inquiry > > > > is > > > > inquiry is about seeing into the suffering, investigating it and > > > > investigating the reality of the suffering entity. > > > > In place of just " avoiding " the " reality " , the inquiry tries to find > > > > the > > > > ultimate and then to see how and why one escapes the ultimate > > > > reality > > > > and gets trapped into something else. > > > > > > D: Well, look, there can't really be anything else, can there? > > > > > > So the " getting trapped " could only be some kind of self-trapping > > > occurring in imagination - no? > > > > > > > " Once you know with absolute certainty that nothing can trouble you but > > your own imagination, you come to disregard your desires and fears, > > concepts and ideas and live by truth alone. " -- Nis., from " I Am That " > > > > > And who is the disregarder ? > > Werner The answer is, before the question arises. - D - Answer and question arise together. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 21:41:12 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 22:01:05 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 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:00 PM Re: i am that Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > You laugh at your own quips, I see. > > Amuse yourself with your wit. > > " Your mind " is just a convention of speech. > > Don't get hung up on it. > > None of these conventions of speech has ever made anything to exist. > > Let alone a mythology about " a ray " or any of the rest of the drama. > > Believing in a drama, for the sake of being one of the elect who knows > what is going on, eh? To be one of those special in-the-know thought-forms > ... > > - D - > > You invented a dialogue a la dan in your mind. I have not said what you > suppose i did...including the drama stuff. > -geo- I didn't suppose you did anything. Did you supposed I supposed? I don't suppose so. - D - I did. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 22:02:49 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 22:07:12 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 Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there nothing you can do? M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . Q: Why then don't we wake up? M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far away. http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Q: Can I say that I am not what I am conscious of, nor am I consciousness itself? M: As long as you are a seeker, better cling to the idea that you are pure consciousness, free from all content. To go beyond consciousness is the supreme state. Q: The desire for realisation, does it originate in consciousness or beyond? M: In consciousness, of course. All desire is born from memory and is within the realm of consciousness. What is beyond is clear of all striving. The very desire to go beyond consciousness is still in consciousness. Q: Is there any trace, or imprint, of the beyond on consciousness? M: No, there cannot be. Q: Then, what is the link between the two? How can a passage be found between two states which have nothing in common? Is not pure awareness the link between the two? M: Even pure awareness is a form of consciousness. Q: Then what is beyond? Emptiness? M: Emptiness again refers only to consciousness. Fullness and emptiness are relative terms. The Real is really beyond -- beyond not in relation to consciousness, but beyond all relations of whatever kind. The difficulty comes with the word 'state'. The Real is not a state of something else -- it is not a state of mind or consciousness or psyche -- nor is it something that has a beginning and an end, being and not being. All opposites are contained in it -- but it is not in the play of opposites. You must not take it to be the end of a transition. It is itself, after the consciousness as such is no more. Then words 'I am man', or 'I am God' have no meaning. Only in silence and in darkness can it be heard and seen. > > http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=5 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Q: Buddha too has said that for the attainment of nirvana one must go to living beings. Consciousness needs life to grow. M: The world itself is contact -- the totality of all contacts actualised in consciousness. The spirit touches matter and consciousness results. Such consciousness. when tainted with memory and expectation, becomes bondage. Pure experience does not bind; experience caught between desire and fear is impure and creates karma. Q: Can there be happiness in unity? Does not all happiness imply necessarily contact, hence duality? M: There is nothing wrong with duality as long as it does not create conflict. Multiplicity and variety without strife is joy. In pure consciousness there is light. For warmth, contact is needed. Above the unity of being is the union of love. Love is the meaning and purpose of duality. Q: I am an adopted child. My own father I do not know. My mother died when I was born. My foster father, to please my foster mother, who was childless, adopted me -- almost by accident. He is a simple man -- a truck owner and driver. My mother keeps the house. I am 24 years now. For the last two and a half years I am travelling, restless, seeking. I want to live a good life, a holy life. What am I to do? M: Go home, take charge of your father's business, look after your parents in their old age. Marry the girl who is waiting for you, be loyal, be simple, be humble. Hide your virtue, live silently. The five senses and the three qualities (gunas) are your eight steps in Yoga. And 'I am' is the Great Reminder (mahamantra). You can learn from them all you need to know. Be attentive, enquire ceaselessly. That is all. Q: If just living one's life liberates, why are not all liberated? M: All are being liberated. It is not what you live, but how you live that matters. The idea of enlightenment is of utmost importance. Just to know that there is such possibility, changes one's entire outlook. It acts like a burning match in a heap of saw dust. All the great teachers did nothing else. A spark of truth can burn up a mountain of lies. The opposite is also true; The sun of truth remains hidden behind the cloud of self-identification with the body. Q: This spreading the good news of enlightenment seems very important. M: The very hearing of it, is a promise of enlightenment. The very meeting a Guru is the assurance of liberation. Perfection is life-giving and creative. > > > > > http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=5 > > > 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 , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > " Once you know with absolute certainty that nothing can trouble you but your own imagination, you come to disregard your desires and fears, concepts and ideas and live by truth alone. " -- Nis., from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > Hear, here. > > > > > > > > Listen up! > > > > > > > > Smiles, > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > It seems nothing can 'keep one company' but one's own imagination, too. > > > > > > That seems to be the sticking point. > > > > Agreed. > > > > Once it gets going. > > > > Like a locomotive running down hill. > > > > What's going to stop it? > > Indeed. > > Awareness gets filled with " many voices " , one might say. > > All believed to be 'real', to be 'out there', to be 'different than one's own'. > > One believes to be surrounded by a multitude. > > I even seem to recall some mild auditory " hearing of voices " as part of the fragment's dissolution, as though the many voices were objecting to the truth. The dream seemingly objecting to its loss of continuity, at the moment of being awake. - 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 , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > " Once you know with absolute certainty that nothing can trouble you but your own imagination, you come to disregard your desires and fears, concepts and ideas and live by truth alone. " -- Nis., from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > Hear, here. > > > > > > > > > > Listen up! > > > > > > > > > > Smiles, > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > It seems nothing can 'keep one company' but one's own imagination, too. > > > > > > > > That seems to be the sticking point. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > Once it gets going. > > > > > > Like a locomotive running down hill. > > > > > > What's going to stop it? > > > > Indeed. > > > > Awareness gets filled with " many voices " , one might say. > > > > All believed to be 'real', to be 'out there', to be 'different than one's own'. > > > > One believes to be surrounded by a multitude. > > > > I even seem to recall some mild auditory " hearing of voices " as part of the fragment's dissolution, as though the many voices were objecting to the truth. > > > > P.S. Frank Herbert draws some interesting parallels with this as well, in his " Dune " series. > > Some stuff about having a multitude of people " living inside " , from the past. > > Don't know if you've read it. Interesting stuff. Didn't read it. Saw the movie, though. Could be this " multitude of people living inside oneself " is the basis for ancestor worship - not to mention things like " identifying with one's tribe " or " nation. " I remember reading that Hitler used to say, not that he lived in Germany, but that he was the German people. - 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 , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Blugga, blugga, blooga. > > Who is " Sri Ramana Maharshi " , anyway? > > Famous dead guy who liked to babble ;-). I like nice quotes as much as the next guy. Although there is such a thing as " too much of a good thing. " Whenever quotes are presented, there is the underlying implication that " this is something important to be believed and reflected on. " So, no matter how wise the statement, at the point that belief and reflecting on contents of thought doesn't pertain, no quote will pertain. Take the nice quote about how the only true liberation is the extinction of the three liberations. Well, certainly that would also include the extinction of whatever meaning the quote was thought to represent. Yet, the quote is retained and passed on. And so it goes. - 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 , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:01 PM > Re: i am that > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, February 23, 2010 8:39 PM > > Re: i am that > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:14 PM > > > Re: i am that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:48 PM > > > > Re: i am that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Lene: why are we on this planet earth anyway? > > > > > > > > > > geo: When I read Gurdjieffa long time ago it became obvious to me - > > > > > I > > > > > bought the fish. > > > > > Mankind is on earth for two absolutely different reasons. > > > > > > > > > > 1- To fulfill the needs - on a cosmic level - of the absolute in > > > > > order > > > > > to > > > > > sustain the creation and maintainence of the universe. > > > > > In this sense man, or organic life on earth as a whole, are needed > > > > > in > > > > > order to keep the ray of creation working. But for this > > > > > what is needed is a mankind just like it is: mechanical, > > > > > conditioned, > > > > > with > > > > > a sense of herd consciousness. It is as if the earth > > > > > needed the wars and collective conflicts to fulfill some of its > > > > > needs. > > > > > To > > > > > this there is nothing " we " must do - just remain ignorant > > > > > and sleeping as we are. that is what is needed in a cosmic scale. > > > > > > > > > > 2- For a few there is the opportunity to change. That is what we are > > > > > discussing in these forums (not entering in that now). > > > > > This change is a turn inward. A " new " movement in its nature. This > > > > > new > > > > > movement is only attainable through the realization of > > > > > non-separation, of " existing " . It is not meant to the majority for > > > > > that > > > > > would disturb the other needs of the universe (#1) - but for some > > > > > it is possible and necessary for the universe.... in this case not > > > > > the > > > > > same reasons as in #1. > > > > > > > > > > This can be read in Ouspensky's (G's student) book called - In > > > > > Search > > > > > Of > > > > > The Miraculous. > > > > > > > > > > NOTE: Those are very quick and not very carefully chosen words up > > > > > there. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Geo - > > > > > > > > You honestly believe that? > > > > > > > > Wow. > > > > > > > > (Not to mention, it contradicts the " no inner/no outer " you spoke of > > > > just > > > > a > > > > little while ago. Now, it is cosmic levels and a ray of creation that > > > > must > > > > be kept working, not to mention getting to be selected to be one of > > > > the > > > > " chosen few, " eh? > > > > > > > > Very special, no? > > > > > > > > Quite a mythology you bought into. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Whom are you adressing? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Is that a requirement - that there be someone being addressed? > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Is it for geo? > > > -geo- > > > > You've got questions. > > > > The answer is already there, before the question. > > > > - D - > > > > Then why ask " Is that a requirement - that there be someone being > > addressed " ? > > The answer is already there, before the question. > > -geo- > > I know, that's why I asked. > > - D - > > That is what i did. So what? > -geo- So, you answered it. - 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 , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there nothing you can do? > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up? > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far away. Smiling. There is no " shall " -- As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. - 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: > There is no " shall " -- > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. It looks like he understands the person who he's talking to. He's speaking English to an English-speaker, French to a French-speaker. The comfort-seeker and dreamer is all about shall. 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: > > There is no " shall " -- > > > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. > > It looks like he understands the person who he's talking to. He's speaking English to an English-speaker, French to a French-speaker. The comfort-seeker and dreamer is all about shall. > > Julie Could be. Who knows? This is your imagining of him, from words you've read. As what I am saying is my imagining of you, from words read. And what is imagining me, imagining you, as you imagine me and him? Smiles, 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: > > Lene: why are we on this planet earth anyway? > > geo: When I read Gurdjieffa long time ago it became obvious to me - I bought the fish. > Mankind is on earth for two absolutely different reasons. > > 1- To fulfill the needs - on a cosmic level - of the absolute in order to sustain the creation and maintainence of the universe. > In this sense man, or organic life on earth as a whole, are needed in order to keep the ray of creation working. But for this > what is needed is a mankind just like it is: mechanical, conditioned, with a sense of herd consciousness. It is as if the earth > needed the wars and collective conflicts to fulfill some of its needs. To this there is nothing " we " must do - just remain ignorant > and sleeping as we are. that is what is needed in a cosmic scale. > > 2- For a few there is the opportunity to change. That is what we are discussing in these forums (not entering in that now). > This change is a turn inward. A " new " movement in its nature. This new movement is only attainable through the realization of > non-separation, of " existing " . It is not meant to the majority for that would disturb the other needs of the universe (#1) - but for some > it is possible and necessary for the universe.... in this case not the same reasons as in #1. > > Interesting. It sounds like a version of the Matrix the movie plot. I always wondered where Gurdjieff got these prescriptive ideas from. It's not like Russians were known for this sort of thing other than writing very good psychological novels which were mostly descriptive, not prescriptive. 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 , "ac" adithya_comming@ wrote:> >> > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there nothing you can do?> > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- "Stop hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up".> > > > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up?> > > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far away.> > Smiling.> > There is no "shall" --> > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not.> > - D - In the above passage, Maharaj jee said: M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- "Stop hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up".Perhaps, his talk involving future ("shall") too is in the same 'context'; in the context of that which he called 'your dreamlike state'. Having already entered it, he is able to talk in that context and talk of everything that this 'dreamlike state' might entail including the past and future too. regards,ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 - Hur Guler Nisargadatta Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:51 PM Re: i am that Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Lene: why are we on this planet earth anyway? > > geo: When I read Gurdjieff a long time ago it became obvious to me - I > bought the fish. > Mankind is on earth for two absolutely different reasons. > > 1- To fulfill the needs - on a cosmic level - of the absolute in order to > sustain the creation and maintainence of the universe. > In this sense man, or organic life on earth as a whole, are needed in > order to keep the ray of creation working. But for this > what is needed is a mankind just like it is: mechanical, conditioned, with > a sense of herd consciousness. It is as if the earth > needed the wars and collective conflicts to fulfill some of its needs. To > this there is nothing " we " must do - just remain ignorant > and sleeping as we are. that is what is needed in a cosmic scale. > > 2- For a few there is the opportunity to change. That is what we are > discussing in these forums (not entering in that now). > This change is a turn inward. A " new " movement in its nature. This new > movement is only attainable through the realization of > non-separation, of " existing " . It is not meant to the majority for that > would disturb the other needs of the universe (#1) - but for some > it is possible and necessary for the universe.... in this case not the > same reasons as in #1. > > Interesting. It sounds like a version of the Matrix the movie plot. I always wondered where Gurdjieff got these prescriptive ideas from. It's not like Russians were known for this sort of thing other than writing very good psychological novels which were mostly descriptive, not prescriptive. geo: He is not Russian but from turkey. It is very interesting indeed. The trouble is that people sort of confuse Gurdjieff " schools " and other fourth way BS with what G had to say. He said he got it from other(s). The real source is unknown. All this doesn't matter. What matters is assimilating the stuff to the point I can say it is mine. I robed it and now it is mine!! ...It is not for anyone on the street because it may seem to theoretical if viewed only from an analytical perspective - specially at first sight. The fact is that the man - as anyone who " knows " - is trying to describe, to draw a map, of something that is right here present in front of me (him). But not all languages are suited for all people. Viva a diferença!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 > Lene: why are we on this planet earth anyway? > > geo: When I read Gurdjieff a long time ago it became obvious to me - I > bought the fish. > Mankind is on earth for two absolutely different reasons. > > 1- To fulfill the needs - on a cosmic level - of the absolute in order to > sustain the creation and maintainence of the universe. > In this sense man, or organic life on earth as a whole, are needed in > order to keep the ray of creation working. But for this > what is needed is a mankind just like it is: mechanical, conditioned, with > a sense of herd consciousness. It is as if the earth > needed the wars and collective conflicts to fulfill some of its needs. To > this there is nothing "we"must do - just remain ignorant > and sleeping as we are. that is what is needed in a cosmic scale. > > 2- For a few there is the opportunity to change. That is what we are > discussing in these forums (not entering in that now). > This change is a turn inward. A "new" movement in its nature. This new > movement is only attainable through the realization of > non-separation, of "existing". It is not meant to the majority for that > would disturb the other needs of the universe (#1) - but for some > it is possible and necessary for the universe.... in this case not the > same reasons as in #1. > > Interesting. It sounds like a version of the Matrix the movie plot. I always wondered where Gurdjieff got these prescriptive ideas from. It's not like Russians were known for this sort of thing other than writing very good psychological novels which were mostly descriptive, not prescriptive. geo: He is not Russian but from turkey. It is very interesting indeed. The trouble is that people sort of confuse Gurdjieff "schools" and other fourth way BS with what G had to say. He said he got it from other(s). The real source is unknown. All this doesn't matter. What matters is assimilating the stuff to the point I can say it is mine. I robed it and now it is mine!! ...It is not for anyone on the street because it may seem to theoretical if viewed only from an analytical perspective - specially at first sight. The fact is that the man - as anyone who "knows" - is trying to describe, to draw a map, of something that is right here present in front of me (him). But not all languages are suited for all people. Viva a diferença!! As I know Gurdjieff was born in Georgia and he had teacher there (when he was young), then he moved to France, where he lived in castle (some devotee - lady - offered him this place). His methods were strange but effective. Ales Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " adithya_comming@ wrote: > > > > > > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there > nothing you can do? > > > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > > > > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up? > > > > > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When > you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far away. > > > > Smiling. > > > > There is no " shall " -- > > > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. > > > > - D - > > > In the above passage, Maharaj jee said: > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > Perhaps, his talk involving future ( " shall " ) too is in the same > 'context'; in the context of that which he called 'your dreamlike > state'. Having already entered it, he is able to talk in that context > and talk of everything that this 'dreamlike state' might entail > including the past and future too. > > regards,ac Perhaps. I would look at it this way: " Prior " to any dream-arising there is not me separate from you, nor is there time for that matter, nor space. Dream arises - seemingly involving me and you, time, space. Now, what is happening? Is the dream-arising belonging to anyone? It can't be. There is no one existing outside of the dream for it to belong to. Dream characters arise and speak, seemingly interacting. Do any of these characters have any existence of their own apart from the dream? No. Do any of these characters have any volition? No. There is no separable doer to give any of the characters volition, and in the exact same way, there is no separable knower that can exist as any of the characters. So, there is no one separately existing who can " enter " a dream. There is no " someone else " apart from the dream, whose dream I can enter. There is only dreaming, or there is not dreaming. In either case, there is no volition involved, nor any separable knower involved. Volition is an attribution made in the dream, requiring dream-assumptions. So, when a Nisargadatta character arises saying " don't do this, do that " he seems to be addressing volitional entities. If he says " look into this " it has the same implication. Clearly, this is all dream-activity. It is one dreaming. There is no one existing apart from the dreaming who can educate someone else about the situation. Dream-arising as Nis. Dream-arising as someone hearing Nis. Dream-arising as someone recording what was said. Dream-arising as AC commenting about what was read. Dream-arising as Dan commenting about AC's observation shared on an internet list. An indivisible dream-arising, indivisible from the non-dreaming " non-arising background. " - 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: > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " adithya_comming@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there > > nothing you can do? > > > > > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up? > > > > > > > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When > > you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far away. > > > > > > Smiling. > > > > > > There is no " shall " -- > > > > > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > In the above passage, Maharaj jee said: > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > Perhaps, his talk involving future ( " shall " ) too is in the same > > 'context'; in the context of that which he called 'your dreamlike > > state'. Having already entered it, he is able to talk in that context > > and talk of everything that this 'dreamlike state' might entail > > including the past and future too. > > > > regards,ac > > > Perhaps. > > I would look at it this way: > > " Prior " to any dream-arising there is not me separate from you, nor is there time for that matter, nor space. > > Dream arises - seemingly involving me and you, time, space. > > Now, what is happening? > > Is the dream-arising belonging to anyone? > > It can't be. > > There is no one existing outside of the dream for it to belong to. > > Dream characters arise and speak, seemingly interacting. > > Do any of these characters have any existence of their own apart from the dream? > > No. > > Do any of these characters have any volition? > > No. > > There is no separable doer to give any of the characters volition, and in the exact same way, there is no separable knower that can exist as any of the characters. > > So, there is no one separately existing who can " enter " a dream. > > There is no " someone else " apart from the dream, whose dream I can enter. > > There is only dreaming, or there is not dreaming. > > In either case, there is no volition involved, nor any separable knower involved. > > Volition is an attribution made in the dream, requiring dream-assumptions. > > So, when a Nisargadatta character arises saying " don't do this, do that " he seems to be addressing volitional entities. If he says " look into this " it has the same implication. > > Clearly, this is all dream-activity. > > It is one dreaming. > > There is no one existing apart from the dreaming who can educate someone else about the situation. > > Dream-arising as Nis. Dream-arising as someone hearing Nis. Dream-arising as someone recording what was said. Dream-arising as AC commenting about what was read. Dream-arising as Dan commenting about AC's observation shared on an internet list. > > An indivisible dream-arising, indivisible from the non-dreaming " non-arising background. " > > - Dan - > The following passage seems relevant: " Just as a man having headache knows the ache and also knows that he is not the ache, so do I know the dream, myself dreaming and myself not dreaming -- all at the same time. " -- from " I Am That " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:51 PM Re: I AM THAT Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " adithya_comming@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there > > nothing you can do? > > > > > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up? > > > > > > > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When > > you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far away. > > > > > > Smiling. > > > > > > There is no " shall " -- > > > > > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > In the above passage, Maharaj jee said: > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > Perhaps, his talk involving future ( " shall " ) too is in the same > > 'context'; in the context of that which he called 'your dreamlike > > state'. Having already entered it, he is able to talk in that context > > and talk of everything that this 'dreamlike state' might entail > > including the past and future too. > > > > regards,ac > > > Perhaps. > > I would look at it this way: > > " Prior " to any dream-arising there is not me separate from you, nor is > there time for that matter, nor space. > > Dream arises - seemingly involving me and you, time, space. > > Now, what is happening? > > Is the dream-arising belonging to anyone? > > It can't be. > > There is no one existing outside of the dream for it to belong to. > > Dream characters arise and speak, seemingly interacting. > > Do any of these characters have any existence of their own apart from the > dream? > > No. > > Do any of these characters have any volition? > > No. > > There is no separable doer to give any of the characters volition, and in > the exact same way, there is no separable knower that can exist as any of > the characters. > > So, there is no one separately existing who can " enter " a dream. > > There is no " someone else " apart from the dream, whose dream I can enter. > > There is only dreaming, or there is not dreaming. > > In either case, there is no volition involved, nor any separable knower > involved. > > Volition is an attribution made in the dream, requiring dream-assumptions. > > So, when a Nisargadatta character arises saying " don't do this, do that " > he seems to be addressing volitional entities. If he says " look into this " > it has the same implication. > > Clearly, this is all dream-activity. > > It is one dreaming. > > There is no one existing apart from the dreaming who can educate someone > else about the situation. > > Dream-arising as Nis. Dream-arising as someone hearing Nis. Dream-arising > as someone recording what was said. Dream-arising as AC commenting about > what was read. Dream-arising as Dan commenting about AC's observation > shared on an internet list. > > An indivisible dream-arising, indivisible from the non-dreaming > " non-arising background. " > > - Dan - > The following passage seems relevant: " Just as a man having headache knows the ache and also knows that he is not the ache, so do I know the dream, myself dreaming and myself not dreaming -- all at the same time. " -- from " I Am That " == We have been saying it .....The ground patterning. I know the ground, the patterns and the patterning all at the same time. (I??...I know...I know....I know..) -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:51 PM > Re: I AM THAT > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " adithya_comming@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there > > > nothing you can do? > > > > > > > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up? > > > > > > > > > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When > > > you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far away. > > > > > > > > Smiling. > > > > > > > > There is no " shall " -- > > > > > > > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > In the above passage, Maharaj jee said: > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > Perhaps, his talk involving future ( " shall " ) too is in the same > > > 'context'; in the context of that which he called 'your dreamlike > > > state'. Having already entered it, he is able to talk in that context > > > and talk of everything that this 'dreamlike state' might entail > > > including the past and future too. > > > > > > regards,ac > > > > > > Perhaps. > > > > I would look at it this way: > > > > " Prior " to any dream-arising there is not me separate from you, nor is > > there time for that matter, nor space. > > > > Dream arises - seemingly involving me and you, time, space. > > > > Now, what is happening? > > > > Is the dream-arising belonging to anyone? > > > > It can't be. > > > > There is no one existing outside of the dream for it to belong to. > > > > Dream characters arise and speak, seemingly interacting. > > > > Do any of these characters have any existence of their own apart from the > > dream? > > > > No. > > > > Do any of these characters have any volition? > > > > No. > > > > There is no separable doer to give any of the characters volition, and in > > the exact same way, there is no separable knower that can exist as any of > > the characters. > > > > So, there is no one separately existing who can " enter " a dream. > > > > There is no " someone else " apart from the dream, whose dream I can enter. > > > > There is only dreaming, or there is not dreaming. > > > > In either case, there is no volition involved, nor any separable knower > > involved. > > > > Volition is an attribution made in the dream, requiring dream-assumptions. > > > > So, when a Nisargadatta character arises saying " don't do this, do that " > > he seems to be addressing volitional entities. If he says " look into this " > > it has the same implication. > > > > Clearly, this is all dream-activity. > > > > It is one dreaming. > > > > There is no one existing apart from the dreaming who can educate someone > > else about the situation. > > > > Dream-arising as Nis. Dream-arising as someone hearing Nis. Dream-arising > > as someone recording what was said. Dream-arising as AC commenting about > > what was read. Dream-arising as Dan commenting about AC's observation > > shared on an internet list. > > > > An indivisible dream-arising, indivisible from the non-dreaming > > " non-arising background. " > > > > - Dan - > > > > The following passage seems relevant: > > " Just as a man having headache knows the ache and also knows that he is not > the ache, so do I know the dream, myself dreaming and myself not dreaming -- > all at the same time. " -- from " I Am That " > == > We have been saying it .....The ground patterning. I know the ground, the > patterns and the patterning all at the same time. (I??...I know...I > know....I know..) > -geo- > The patterning is clear when one isn't imaginarily " reaching out " outside of oneself to others (or to a 'world out there'), creating an imagined outside -- which, in turn, creates an imagined inside. It certainly isn't clear in the words, while an inner/outer is still attempted to be maintained. And so, such an attempt fails, as impossible, as contradictory. Then, all is clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:51 PM > Re: I AM THAT > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " adithya_comming@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there > > > nothing you can do? > > > > > > > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up? > > > > > > > > > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When > > > you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far away. > > > > > > > > Smiling. > > > > > > > > There is no " shall " -- > > > > > > > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > In the above passage, Maharaj jee said: > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > Perhaps, his talk involving future ( " shall " ) too is in the same > > > 'context'; in the context of that which he called 'your dreamlike > > > state'. Having already entered it, he is able to talk in that context > > > and talk of everything that this 'dreamlike state' might entail > > > including the past and future too. > > > > > > regards,ac > > > > > > Perhaps. > > > > I would look at it this way: > > > > " Prior " to any dream-arising there is not me separate from you, nor is > > there time for that matter, nor space. > > > > Dream arises - seemingly involving me and you, time, space. > > > > Now, what is happening? > > > > Is the dream-arising belonging to anyone? > > > > It can't be. > > > > There is no one existing outside of the dream for it to belong to. > > > > Dream characters arise and speak, seemingly interacting. > > > > Do any of these characters have any existence of their own apart from the > > dream? > > > > No. > > > > Do any of these characters have any volition? > > > > No. > > > > There is no separable doer to give any of the characters volition, and in > > the exact same way, there is no separable knower that can exist as any of > > the characters. > > > > So, there is no one separately existing who can " enter " a dream. > > > > There is no " someone else " apart from the dream, whose dream I can enter. > > > > There is only dreaming, or there is not dreaming. > > > > In either case, there is no volition involved, nor any separable knower > > involved. > > > > Volition is an attribution made in the dream, requiring dream-assumptions. > > > > So, when a Nisargadatta character arises saying " don't do this, do that " > > he seems to be addressing volitional entities. If he says " look into this " > > it has the same implication. > > > > Clearly, this is all dream-activity. > > > > It is one dreaming. > > > > There is no one existing apart from the dreaming who can educate someone > > else about the situation. > > > > Dream-arising as Nis. Dream-arising as someone hearing Nis. Dream-arising > > as someone recording what was said. Dream-arising as AC commenting about > > what was read. Dream-arising as Dan commenting about AC's observation > > shared on an internet list. > > > > An indivisible dream-arising, indivisible from the non-dreaming > > " non-arising background. " > > > > - Dan - > > > > The following passage seems relevant: > > " Just as a man having headache knows the ache and also knows that he is not > the ache, so do I know the dream, myself dreaming and myself not dreaming -- > all at the same time. " -- from " I Am That " > == > We have been saying it .....The ground patterning. I know the ground, the > patterns and the patterning all at the same time. (I??...I know...I > know....I know..) > -geo- Once I kidded myself that I knew something. Seemed like there was a club to join. They had a lingo to talk. It seemed like there was something to be remembered. One day, I stopped trying. What a relief. The only thing was, I had no choice but to be the fear. The fear of burning up, burned up. Too dismembered to be remembered. Not fit for any club. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:51 PM > > Re: I AM THAT > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " adithya_comming@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there > > > > nothing you can do? > > > > > > > > > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up? > > > > > > > > > > > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When > > > > you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far away. > > > > > > > > > > Smiling. > > > > > > > > > > There is no " shall " -- > > > > > > > > > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > In the above passage, Maharaj jee said: > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > Perhaps, his talk involving future ( " shall " ) too is in the same > > > > 'context'; in the context of that which he called 'your dreamlike > > > > state'. Having already entered it, he is able to talk in that context > > > > and talk of everything that this 'dreamlike state' might entail > > > > including the past and future too. > > > > > > > > regards,ac > > > > > > > > > Perhaps. > > > > > > I would look at it this way: > > > > > > " Prior " to any dream-arising there is not me separate from you, nor is > > > there time for that matter, nor space. > > > > > > Dream arises - seemingly involving me and you, time, space. > > > > > > Now, what is happening? > > > > > > Is the dream-arising belonging to anyone? > > > > > > It can't be. > > > > > > There is no one existing outside of the dream for it to belong to. > > > > > > Dream characters arise and speak, seemingly interacting. > > > > > > Do any of these characters have any existence of their own apart from the > > > dream? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > Do any of these characters have any volition? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > There is no separable doer to give any of the characters volition, and in > > > the exact same way, there is no separable knower that can exist as any of > > > the characters. > > > > > > So, there is no one separately existing who can " enter " a dream. > > > > > > There is no " someone else " apart from the dream, whose dream I can enter. > > > > > > There is only dreaming, or there is not dreaming. > > > > > > In either case, there is no volition involved, nor any separable knower > > > involved. > > > > > > Volition is an attribution made in the dream, requiring dream-assumptions. > > > > > > So, when a Nisargadatta character arises saying " don't do this, do that " > > > he seems to be addressing volitional entities. If he says " look into this " > > > it has the same implication. > > > > > > Clearly, this is all dream-activity. > > > > > > It is one dreaming. > > > > > > There is no one existing apart from the dreaming who can educate someone > > > else about the situation. > > > > > > Dream-arising as Nis. Dream-arising as someone hearing Nis. Dream-arising > > > as someone recording what was said. Dream-arising as AC commenting about > > > what was read. Dream-arising as Dan commenting about AC's observation > > > shared on an internet list. > > > > > > An indivisible dream-arising, indivisible from the non-dreaming > > > " non-arising background. " > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > The following passage seems relevant: > > > > " Just as a man having headache knows the ache and also knows that he is not > > the ache, so do I know the dream, myself dreaming and myself not dreaming -- > > all at the same time. " -- from " I Am That " > > == > > We have been saying it .....The ground patterning. I know the ground, the > > patterns and the patterning all at the same time. (I??...I know...I > > know....I know..) > > -geo- > > Once I kidded myself that I knew something. > > Seemed like there was a club to join. > > They had a lingo to talk. > > It seemed like there was something to be remembered. Ditto here. At the same time, the pointings 'touched something'. It wasn't just a verbal contest to see who knew more. But at one point, I decided that if it really " had any lasting effect " , such an effect would remain, and I left the club, left the lists, left " spirituality " . Spent five years mostly alone, failing, winding down, dying. Didn't see a human face for days at a time, at times. More and more here-now oriented, without being conscious of it at all. So the story goes, anyway ;-). I eventually woke up one morning, took a look out on my back porch at the moss and leaves rotting there, and saw myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:20 PM Re: I AM THAT Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:51 PM > Re: I AM THAT > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " adithya_comming@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there > > > nothing you can do? > > > > > > > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- > > > > > " Stop > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up? > > > > > > > > > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When > > > you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far > > > away. > > > > > > > > Smiling. > > > > > > > > There is no " shall " -- > > > > > > > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > In the above passage, Maharaj jee said: > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > Perhaps, his talk involving future ( " shall " ) too is in the same > > > 'context'; in the context of that which he called 'your dreamlike > > > state'. Having already entered it, he is able to talk in that context > > > and talk of everything that this 'dreamlike state' might entail > > > including the past and future too. > > > > > > regards,ac > > > > > > Perhaps. > > > > I would look at it this way: > > > > " Prior " to any dream-arising there is not me separate from you, nor is > > there time for that matter, nor space. > > > > Dream arises - seemingly involving me and you, time, space. > > > > Now, what is happening? > > > > Is the dream-arising belonging to anyone? > > > > It can't be. > > > > There is no one existing outside of the dream for it to belong to. > > > > Dream characters arise and speak, seemingly interacting. > > > > Do any of these characters have any existence of their own apart from > > the > > dream? > > > > No. > > > > Do any of these characters have any volition? > > > > No. > > > > There is no separable doer to give any of the characters volition, and > > in > > the exact same way, there is no separable knower that can exist as any > > of > > the characters. > > > > So, there is no one separately existing who can " enter " a dream. > > > > There is no " someone else " apart from the dream, whose dream I can > > enter. > > > > There is only dreaming, or there is not dreaming. > > > > In either case, there is no volition involved, nor any separable knower > > involved. > > > > Volition is an attribution made in the dream, requiring > > dream-assumptions. > > > > So, when a Nisargadatta character arises saying " don't do this, do that " > > he seems to be addressing volitional entities. If he says " look into > > this " > > it has the same implication. > > > > Clearly, this is all dream-activity. > > > > It is one dreaming. > > > > There is no one existing apart from the dreaming who can educate someone > > else about the situation. > > > > Dream-arising as Nis. Dream-arising as someone hearing Nis. > > Dream-arising > > as someone recording what was said. Dream-arising as AC commenting about > > what was read. Dream-arising as Dan commenting about AC's observation > > shared on an internet list. > > > > An indivisible dream-arising, indivisible from the non-dreaming > > " non-arising background. " > > > > - Dan - > > > > The following passage seems relevant: > > " Just as a man having headache knows the ache and also knows that he is > not > the ache, so do I know the dream, myself dreaming and myself not > dreaming -- > all at the same time. " -- from " I Am That " > == > We have been saying it .....The ground patterning. I know the ground, the > patterns and the patterning all at the same time. (I??...I know...I > know....I know..) > -geo- > The patterning is clear when one isn't imaginarily " reaching out " outside of oneself to others (or to a 'world out there'), creating an imagined outside -- which, in turn, creates an imagined inside. It certainly isn't clear in the words, while an inner/outer is still attempted to be maintained. And so, such an attempt fails, as impossible, as contradictory. Then, all is clear. -tim- I don't digest well this idea around the insufficiency of words, for words are not different in their nature from other patterns. Lets face it... the ground is patterning as words, and as all and any patterns it can not be separated from the source. If one issues words that are inadequate and insufficient - that is what they are. I prefer the other way around. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 > > > > > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there > > > nothing you can do? > > > > > > > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- > > > > > " Stop > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up? > > > > > > > > > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. When > > > you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far > > > away. > > > > > > > > Smiling. > > > > > > > > There is no " shall " -- > > > > > > > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > In the above passage, Maharaj jee said: > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > Perhaps, his talk involving future ( " shall " ) too is in the same > > > 'context'; in the context of that which he called 'your dreamlike > > > state'. Having already entered it, he is able to talk in that context > > > and talk of everything that this 'dreamlike state' might entail > > > including the past and future too. > > > > > > regards,ac > > > > > > Perhaps. > > > > I would look at it this way: > > > > " Prior " to any dream-arising there is not me separate from you, nor is > > there time for that matter, nor space. > > > > Dream arises - seemingly involving me and you, time, space. > > > > Now, what is happening? > > > > Is the dream-arising belonging to anyone? > > > > It can't be. > > > > There is no one existing outside of the dream for it to belong to. > > > > Dream characters arise and speak, seemingly interacting. > > > > Do any of these characters have any existence of their own apart from > > the > > dream? > > > > No. > > > > Do any of these characters have any volition? > > > > No. > > > > There is no separable doer to give any of the characters volition, and > > in > > the exact same way, there is no separable knower that can exist as any > > of > > the characters. > > > > So, there is no one separately existing who can " enter " a dream. > > > > There is no " someone else " apart from the dream, whose dream I can > > enter. > > > > There is only dreaming, or there is not dreaming. > > > > In either case, there is no volition involved, nor any separable knower > > involved. > > > > Volition is an attribution made in the dream, requiring > > dream-assumptions. > > > > So, when a Nisargadatta character arises saying " don't do this, do that " > > he seems to be addressing volitional entities. If he says " look into > > this " > > it has the same implication. > > > > Clearly, this is all dream-activity. > > > > It is one dreaming. > > > > There is no one existing apart from the dreaming who can educate someone > > else about the situation. > > > > Dream-arising as Nis. Dream-arising as someone hearing Nis. > > Dream-arising > > as someone recording what was said. Dream-arising as AC commenting about > > what was read. Dream-arising as Dan commenting about AC's observation > > shared on an internet list. > > > > An indivisible dream-arising, indivisible from the non-dreaming > > " non-arising background. " > > > > - Dan - > > > > The following passage seems relevant: > > " Just as a man having headache knows the ache and also knows that he is > not > the ache, so do I know the dream, myself dreaming and myself not > dreaming -- > all at the same time. " -- from " I Am That " > == > We have been saying it .....The ground patterning. I know the ground, the > patterns and the patterning all at the same time. (I??...I know...I > know....I know..) > -geo- Once I kidded myself that I knew something. Seemed like there was a club to join. They had a lingo to talk. It seemed like there was something to be remembered. One day, I stopped trying. What a relief. The only thing was, I had no choice but to be the fear. The fear of burning up, burned up. Too dismembered to be remembered. Not fit for any club. - D - In this regard we are very different. I never searched for such club because I came from a place where only I existed for real - although I thought I was behind my eyes. LOL LOL But no club, ever. Just to play water polo. Dreams differ a bit... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:39 PM Re: I AM THAT Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:51 PM > > Re: I AM THAT > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " adithya_comming@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: We may be sleep-walkers, or subject to nightmares. Is there > > > > nothing you can do? > > > > > > > > > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- > > > > > > " Stop > > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why then don't we wake up? > > > > > > > > > > > > M: You will. I shall not be thwarted. It may take some time. > > > > > > When > > > > you shall begin to question your dream, awakening will be not far > > > > away. > > > > > > > > > > Smiling. > > > > > > > > > > There is no " shall " -- > > > > > > > > > > As he just said a second ago, past and future are not. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > In the above passage, Maharaj jee said: > > > > M: I am doing: I did enter your dreamlike state to tell you -- " Stop > > > > hurting yourself and others, stop suffering, wake up " . > > > > Perhaps, his talk involving future ( " shall " ) too is in the same > > > > 'context'; in the context of that which he called 'your dreamlike > > > > state'. Having already entered it, he is able to talk in that > > > > context > > > > and talk of everything that this 'dreamlike state' might entail > > > > including the past and future too. > > > > > > > > regards,ac > > > > > > > > > Perhaps. > > > > > > I would look at it this way: > > > > > > " Prior " to any dream-arising there is not me separate from you, nor is > > > there time for that matter, nor space. > > > > > > Dream arises - seemingly involving me and you, time, space. > > > > > > Now, what is happening? > > > > > > Is the dream-arising belonging to anyone? > > > > > > It can't be. > > > > > > There is no one existing outside of the dream for it to belong to. > > > > > > Dream characters arise and speak, seemingly interacting. > > > > > > Do any of these characters have any existence of their own apart from > > > the > > > dream? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > Do any of these characters have any volition? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > There is no separable doer to give any of the characters volition, and > > > in > > > the exact same way, there is no separable knower that can exist as any > > > of > > > the characters. > > > > > > So, there is no one separately existing who can " enter " a dream. > > > > > > There is no " someone else " apart from the dream, whose dream I can > > > enter. > > > > > > There is only dreaming, or there is not dreaming. > > > > > > In either case, there is no volition involved, nor any separable > > > knower > > > involved. > > > > > > Volition is an attribution made in the dream, requiring > > > dream-assumptions. > > > > > > So, when a Nisargadatta character arises saying " don't do this, do > > > that " > > > he seems to be addressing volitional entities. If he says " look into > > > this " > > > it has the same implication. > > > > > > Clearly, this is all dream-activity. > > > > > > It is one dreaming. > > > > > > There is no one existing apart from the dreaming who can educate > > > someone > > > else about the situation. > > > > > > Dream-arising as Nis. Dream-arising as someone hearing Nis. > > > Dream-arising > > > as someone recording what was said. Dream-arising as AC commenting > > > about > > > what was read. Dream-arising as Dan commenting about AC's observation > > > shared on an internet list. > > > > > > An indivisible dream-arising, indivisible from the non-dreaming > > > " non-arising background. " > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > The following passage seems relevant: > > > > " Just as a man having headache knows the ache and also knows that he is > > not > > the ache, so do I know the dream, myself dreaming and myself not > > dreaming -- > > all at the same time. " -- from " I Am That " > > == > > We have been saying it .....The ground patterning. I know the ground, > > the > > patterns and the patterning all at the same time. (I??...I know...I > > know....I know..) > > -geo- > > Once I kidded myself that I knew something. > > Seemed like there was a club to join. > > They had a lingo to talk. > > It seemed like there was something to be remembered. Ditto here. At the same time, the pointings 'touched something'. It wasn't just a verbal contest to see who knew more. But at one point, I decided that if it really " had any lasting effect " , such an effect would remain, and I left the club, left the lists, left " spirituality " . Spent five years mostly alone, failing, winding down, dying. Didn't see a human face for days at a time, at times. More and more here-now oriented, without being conscious of it at all. So the story goes, anyway ;-). I eventually woke up one morning, took a look out on my back porch at the moss and leaves rotting there, and saw myself. -tim- I have always questioned everything for I knew I was present and also knew others where not. So I questioned in my own way. Kept questioning....on....on...on..and on. One they I woke up and there where no more questions to make. -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.