Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 cornelius, Thank you for posting this. I've been a fan of Wolinsky in the past until I read " You are Not " . I was curious about this book you posted from. I'm reading it's a three volume set although it seems to be a single book. Is this Volume 1 of 3? Shawn Nisargadatta , " cornelius <d_agenda2000> " <d_agenda2000> wrote: > " Question: There are so many psychological theories--what do I > beleive? > > Answer: " The map is not the territory. " The major problems is that > modern psychology takes the map for the territory, takes the theory > or explanations for the truth, forgetting that it is a mode. The > question is, Who put the theory there? The theory cannot be the > territory or the truth. If you look for the person, the " I " , the > identity, or the practitioner of a psychological model by turning > your attention around even right now, you'll notice that there is > NOTHING there. > > Question: But NOTHING is NOTHING, not a solid world. > > Answer: Physicist John Wheeler said it this way: " Nothingness is the > building block of the universe. " > > Question: In one workshop I took they said that I create my own > reality and so I can change things around but somehow it doesn't > work. Isn't this the same as what Quantum Psychology says? > > Answer: No, you do not create your own reality. > > Question: But can't I, as source, as consciousness, create reality? > > Answer: This approach is full of distortions. First of all you as > source--or the VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS --have no > experience of yourself as source or I create this or that because, as > the VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS, there is NO-I and No > Source. In order to have " you, " " you " must " leave " unity > consciousness and move into " I " or dualistic consciousness, an I am > source or I create my reality. You (as UNDIFFERENTIATED > CONSCIOUSNESS) cannot experience yourself as undifferentiated > consciousness. So the idea that as UNDIFFERENTIAED CONSCIOUSNESS you > create reality is true. But unity unconsciousness does not know > separation and hence, has no experience of a creator-creation > relationship, not to mention an " I " and a not " I " . That's why it > doesn't work. This " I " (creator " actually is not " experienced " as > unity consciousness but as a separate " I " creating this or that. > Hence, this " I " loses awareness of its true identity, as the VOID OF > UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS. When it loses awareness of THAT SAME > SUBSTANCE, a delusional I, with its creation and infinite > possibilities, concepts arises. > > Question: But I do feel separate. > > Answer: The I AM is. Actually, the first belief after I AM is I am > One. It is a belief because when you are one, there is no I to be > one. I am One is a belief when it describes an experience. The next > belief is am separate. To paraphrase Buddha, it is the root cause of > pain. Boundaries imply separation which are appearances. > > The observer of the body-mind which imagines the separation is also > made of the same substance. You, at the most basic level, your hand > holding his book, only appear to the eye as separate from the book. > And the book only appears separate from the print, as does your > energy of thought appear different from the energy in your supposedly > separate body. Again, since not only is the body not separate from > the book or the print, your imagined individual consciousness (you as > a reader) is not separate from the observed book's consciousness. > > Question: But I feel like I have a separate self. > > Answer: The idea, " I feel like I have a separate self " is an idea and > the idea of a separate self is contained within the thought itself. > What is meant by a " self or self-nature " is a misconception of > psychology that experiences, feelings, events, and you as independent > from the experience. This misconception arises out of the separation > of the observer and the observed. The observer and the observed are > one unit. The oberver is not separate from the observed; therefore > the observer has no separate independent nature unto itself. A " NEW " > SELF ARISES WITH EACH 'NEW' EXPERIENCE. THERE IS NO SEPARATE SELF, > SEPARATE FROM THE EXPERIENCE!!! > > Generally, people who come to a therapy office complain about the > problem " as if " the problem were with their mind. Modern > psychologists then spend hours or years working with this mind. Since > psychology is the science of the mind, the mind becomes an > object " over there' to be studied, worked with, experimented with and > done therapy with, as a way to take care of or to change THIS MIND. > The I that doesn't like or has a problem with the mind is part of the > mind. Psychology presupposes that the mind is separate from the > experiencer of the mind, it imagines separations which do not exist. > This imagining creates the therapeutic process. > > Question: Things must have patterns. There must be a connection. > > Answer: The VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS is connected to, > and is, everthing. In psychology there is an assumption which is the > associative trance between two events, like I had a problem with mom > in 1959 so I have a problem with women in 1996. Connected > associations are appearances and are an assumption. Meanings are > placed on associations. The observer, through the act of observation, > looks for the meaning in associations which is a trance. For example, > you said yoiu meditated for many years. Isn't it true that while you > sat not looking for a mental pattern, you would first have a thought > about relationship, next instant a vacation, next a pleasant memory, > next some past memory would pop-up. While in therapy, the trained > observer looks for a meaning in this pattern of associations. This > has underlying assumptions or beliefs, first that there is a pattern, > second, there is associations between objects and events, and third. > if you are a good client you'll see them. Actually, things are more > random then you think, though the observer who holds these > assumptions will create associations which mean something, whether > they are true or not. This is why people see these patterns but still > suffer from them. People look for meanings to try to find meaning in > their life. They do this to resist the random chaos of the condensing > and thinning out of the divine VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED > CONSCIOUSNESS. But everything is everything else, there isn't any > this and other. Don't assume your associative trance minded observer > actually sees reality with any kind of real awareness. The observer > only observes and sees itself. Eric Marcus, when I first saw him at a > lecture in 1975, said, " We live in a world of mirrors and everyone > thinks they are looking out. " Quantum Psychology would say, " The I AM > has an observer which thinks it is looking out, when it is only > looking, oberving and seeing itself. The observer sees that which > they are trained to see and then it assumes it to be true. > > Question: Don't things move and change from one thing into another? > > Answer: There isn't any movement, it's just an appearance of movement > because you identify as a self separate from that movement. > Everything is interconnected with everything else and everything is > everything else. Movement implies a separate self to say it was so. > The idea of a separate self " seeing " or " perceiving " movement is an > idea only. This idea of a separate self is not separate from the idea > of movement itself. " > > From " The Way of the Human " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 Hey Shawn, It seems the first volume is " Quantum consciousness " , and the second, The tao of chaos: Q C " . So you were a fan until you read his book " You are that " , eh? How to Approach Wolinsky's? Don't try to say " VOID of UnDifferentiated Consciousness " while eating a large pretzel. cornelius Nisargadatta@gro ups.com, " Shawn <shawnregan> " <shawnregan> wrote: > cornelius, > > Thank you for posting this. I've been a fan of Wolinsky in the past > until I read " You are Not " . I was curious about this book you posted > from. I'm reading it's a three volume set although it seems to be a > single book. Is this Volume 1 of 3? > > Shawn > > Nisargadatta , " cornelius <d_agenda2000> " > <d_agenda2000> wrote: > > " Question: There are so many psychological theories--what do I > > beleive? > > > > Answer: " The map is not the territory. " The major problems is that > > modern psychology takes the map for the territory, takes the theory > > or explanations for the truth, forgetting that it is a mode. The > > question is, Who put the theory there? The theory cannot be the > > territory or the truth. If you look for the person, the " I " , the > > identity, or the practitioner of a psychological model by turning > > your attention around even right now, you'll notice that there is > > NOTHING there. > > > > Question: But NOTHING is NOTHING, not a solid world. > > > > Answer: Physicist John Wheeler said it this way: " Nothingness is > the > > building block of the universe. " > > > > Question: In one workshop I took they said that I create my own > > reality and so I can change things around but somehow it doesn't > > work. Isn't this the same as what Quantum Psychology says? > > > > Answer: No, you do not create your own reality. > > > > Question: But can't I, as source, as consciousness, create reality? > > > > Answer: This approach is full of distortions. First of all you as > > source--or the VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS --have no > > experience of yourself as source or I create this or that because, > as > > the VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS, there is NO-I and No > > Source. In order to have " you, " " you " must " leave " unity > > consciousness and move into " I " or dualistic consciousness, an I am > > source or I create my reality. You (as UNDIFFERENTIATED > > CONSCIOUSNESS) cannot experience yourself as undifferentiated > > consciousness. So the idea that as UNDIFFERENTIAED CONSCIOUSNESS > you > > create reality is true. But unity unconsciousness does not know > > separation and hence, has no experience of a creator-creation > > relationship, not to mention an " I " and a not " I " . That's why it > > doesn't work. This " I " (creator " actually is not " experienced " as > > unity consciousness but as a separate " I " creating this or that. > > Hence, this " I " loses awareness of its true identity, as the VOID > OF > > UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS. When it loses awareness of THAT > SAME > > SUBSTANCE, a delusional I, with its creation and infinite > > possibilities, concepts arises. > > > > Question: But I do feel separate. > > > > Answer: The I AM is. Actually, the first belief after I AM is I am > > One. It is a belief because when you are one, there is no I to be > > one. I am One is a belief when it describes an experience. The next > > belief is am separate. To paraphrase Buddha, it is the root cause > of > > pain. Boundaries imply separation which are appearances. > > > > The observer of the body-mind which imagines the separation is also > > made of the same substance. You, at the most basic level, your hand > > holding his book, only appear to the eye as separate from the book. > > And the book only appears separate from the print, as does your > > energy of thought appear different from the energy in your > supposedly > > separate body. Again, since not only is the body not separate from > > the book or the print, your imagined individual consciousness (you > as > > a reader) is not separate from the observed book's consciousness. > > > > Question: But I feel like I have a separate self. > > > > Answer: The idea, " I feel like I have a separate self " is an idea > and > > the idea of a separate self is contained within the thought itself. > > What is meant by a " self or self-nature " is a misconception of > > psychology that experiences, feelings, events, and you as > independent > > from the experience. This misconception arises out of the > separation > > of the observer and the observed. The observer and the observed are > > one unit. The oberver is not separate from the observed; therefore > > the observer has no separate independent nature unto itself. > A " NEW " > > SELF ARISES WITH EACH 'NEW' EXPERIENCE. THERE IS NO SEPARATE SELF, > > SEPARATE FROM THE EXPERIENCE!!! > > > > Generally, people who come to a therapy office complain about the > > problem " as if " the problem were with their mind. Modern > > psychologists then spend hours or years working with this mind. > Since > > psychology is the science of the mind, the mind becomes an > > object " over there' to be studied, worked with, experimented with > and > > done therapy with, as a way to take care of or to change THIS MIND. > > The I that doesn't like or has a problem with the mind is part of > the > > mind. Psychology presupposes that the mind is separate from the > > experiencer of the mind, it imagines separations which do not > exist. > > This imagining creates the therapeutic process. > > > > Question: Things must have patterns. There must be a connection. > > > > Answer: The VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS is connected to, > > and is, everthing. In psychology there is an assumption which is > the > > associative trance between two events, like I had a problem with > mom > > in 1959 so I have a problem with women in 1996. Connected > > associations are appearances and are an assumption. Meanings are > > placed on associations. The observer, through the act of > observation, > > looks for the meaning in associations which is a trance. For > example, > > you said yoiu meditated for many years. Isn't it true that while > you > > sat not looking for a mental pattern, you would first have a > thought > > about relationship, next instant a vacation, next a pleasant > memory, > > next some past memory would pop-up. While in therapy, the trained > > observer looks for a meaning in this pattern of associations. This > > has underlying assumptions or beliefs, first that there is a > pattern, > > second, there is associations between objects and events, and > third. > > if you are a good client you'll see them. Actually, things are more > > random then you think, though the observer who holds these > > assumptions will create associations which mean something, whether > > they are true or not. This is why people see these patterns but > still > > suffer from them. People look for meanings to try to find meaning > in > > their life. They do this to resist the random chaos of the > condensing > > and thinning out of the divine VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED > > CONSCIOUSNESS. But everything is everything else, there isn't any > > this and other. Don't assume your associative trance minded > observer > > actually sees reality with any kind of real awareness. The observer > > only observes and sees itself. Eric Marcus, when I first saw him at > a > > lecture in 1975, said, " We live in a world of mirrors and everyone > > thinks they are looking out. " Quantum Psychology would say, " The I > AM > > has an observer which thinks it is looking out, when it is only > > looking, oberving and seeing itself. The observer sees that which > > they are trained to see and then it assumes it to be true. > > > > Question: Don't things move and change from one thing into another? > > > > Answer: There isn't any movement, it's just an appearance of > movement > > because you identify as a self separate from that movement. > > Everything is interconnected with everything else and everything is > > everything else. Movement implies a separate self to say it was so. > > The idea of a separate self " seeing " or " perceiving " movement is an > > idea only. This idea of a separate self is not separate from the > idea > > of movement itself. " > > > > From " The Way of the Human " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 That explains it, I have volumes 1 and 2 then. I was disappointed by " You Are That " . At first his obsessive quoting of the personal pronouns " I " found cumbersome. He could have explained in a paragraph like other authors do up front. Then the session texts that were virtually all the same that comprised half the book. Very tedious reading. Do you recommend this third book in the volume? I did like " Quantum Consciousness " quite a bit. > Don't try to say " VOID of UnDifferentiated Consciousness " while > eating a large pretzel. Or Hypermasculine Dharmas if you're a Saniel Bonder fan... Shawn Nisargadatta , " cornelius <d_agenda2000> " <d_agenda2000> wrote: > Hey Shawn, > > It seems the first volume is " Quantum consciousness " , and the second, > The tao of chaos: Q C " . > So you were a fan until you read his book " You are that " , eh? > > How to Approach Wolinsky's? > > Don't try to say " VOID of UnDifferentiated Consciousness " while > eating a large pretzel. > > cornelius > > > Nisargadatta@gro > > ups.com, " Shawn <shawnregan> " <shawnregan> wrote: > > cornelius, > > > > Thank you for posting this. I've been a fan of Wolinsky in the past > > until I read " You are Not " . I was curious about this book you > posted > > from. I'm reading it's a three volume set although it seems to be a > > single book. Is this Volume 1 of 3? > > > > Shawn > > > > Nisargadatta , " cornelius > <d_agenda2000> " > > <d_agenda2000> wrote: > > > " Question: There are so many psychological theories--what do I > > > beleive? > > > > > > Answer: " The map is not the territory. " The major problems is > that > > > modern psychology takes the map for the territory, takes the > theory > > > or explanations for the truth, forgetting that it is a mode. The > > > question is, Who put the theory there? The theory cannot be the > > > territory or the truth. If you look for the person, the " I " , the > > > identity, or the practitioner of a psychological model by turning > > > your attention around even right now, you'll notice that there is > > > NOTHING there. > > > > > > Question: But NOTHING is NOTHING, not a solid world. > > > > > > Answer: Physicist John Wheeler said it this way: " Nothingness is > > the > > > building block of the universe. " > > > > > > Question: In one workshop I took they said that I create my own > > > reality and so I can change things around but somehow it doesn't > > > work. Isn't this the same as what Quantum Psychology says? > > > > > > Answer: No, you do not create your own reality. > > > > > > Question: But can't I, as source, as consciousness, create > reality? > > > > > > Answer: This approach is full of distortions. First of all you as > > > source--or the VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS --have no > > > experience of yourself as source or I create this or that > because, > > as > > > the VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS, there is NO-I and No > > > Source. In order to have " you, " " you " must " leave " unity > > > consciousness and move into " I " or dualistic consciousness, an I > am > > > source or I create my reality. You (as UNDIFFERENTIATED > > > CONSCIOUSNESS) cannot experience yourself as undifferentiated > > > consciousness. So the idea that as UNDIFFERENTIAED CONSCIOUSNESS > > you > > > create reality is true. But unity unconsciousness does not know > > > separation and hence, has no experience of a creator-creation > > > relationship, not to mention an " I " and a not " I " . That's why it > > > doesn't work. This " I " (creator " actually is not " experienced " as > > > unity consciousness but as a separate " I " creating this or that. > > > Hence, this " I " loses awareness of its true identity, as the VOID > > OF > > > UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS. When it loses awareness of THAT > > SAME > > > SUBSTANCE, a delusional I, with its creation and infinite > > > possibilities, concepts arises. > > > > > > Question: But I do feel separate. > > > > > > Answer: The I AM is. Actually, the first belief after I AM is I > am > > > One. It is a belief because when you are one, there is no I to be > > > one. I am One is a belief when it describes an experience. The > next > > > belief is am separate. To paraphrase Buddha, it is the root cause > > of > > > pain. Boundaries imply separation which are appearances. > > > > > > The observer of the body-mind which imagines the separation is > also > > > made of the same substance. You, at the most basic level, your > hand > > > holding his book, only appear to the eye as separate from the > book. > > > And the book only appears separate from the print, as does your > > > energy of thought appear different from the energy in your > > supposedly > > > separate body. Again, since not only is the body not separate > from > > > the book or the print, your imagined individual consciousness > (you > > as > > > a reader) is not separate from the observed book's consciousness. > > > > > > Question: But I feel like I have a separate self. > > > > > > Answer: The idea, " I feel like I have a separate self " is an idea > > and > > > the idea of a separate self is contained within the thought > itself. > > > What is meant by a " self or self-nature " is a misconception of > > > psychology that experiences, feelings, events, and you as > > independent > > > from the experience. This misconception arises out of the > > separation > > > of the observer and the observed. The observer and the observed > are > > > one unit. The oberver is not separate from the observed; > therefore > > > the observer has no separate independent nature unto itself. > > A " NEW " > > > SELF ARISES WITH EACH 'NEW' EXPERIENCE. THERE IS NO SEPARATE > SELF, > > > SEPARATE FROM THE EXPERIENCE!!! > > > > > > Generally, people who come to a therapy office complain about the > > > problem " as if " the problem were with their mind. Modern > > > psychologists then spend hours or years working with this mind. > > Since > > > psychology is the science of the mind, the mind becomes an > > > object " over there' to be studied, worked with, experimented with > > and > > > done therapy with, as a way to take care of or to change THIS > MIND. > > > The I that doesn't like or has a problem with the mind is part of > > the > > > mind. Psychology presupposes that the mind is separate from the > > > experiencer of the mind, it imagines separations which do not > > exist. > > > This imagining creates the therapeutic process. > > > > > > Question: Things must have patterns. There must be a connection. > > > > > > Answer: The VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS is connected > to, > > > and is, everthing. In psychology there is an assumption which is > > the > > > associative trance between two events, like I had a problem with > > mom > > > in 1959 so I have a problem with women in 1996. Connected > > > associations are appearances and are an assumption. Meanings are > > > placed on associations. The observer, through the act of > > observation, > > > looks for the meaning in associations which is a trance. For > > example, > > > you said yoiu meditated for many years. Isn't it true that while > > you > > > sat not looking for a mental pattern, you would first have a > > thought > > > about relationship, next instant a vacation, next a pleasant > > memory, > > > next some past memory would pop-up. While in therapy, the trained > > > observer looks for a meaning in this pattern of associations. > This > > > has underlying assumptions or beliefs, first that there is a > > pattern, > > > second, there is associations between objects and events, and > > third. > > > if you are a good client you'll see them. Actually, things are > more > > > random then you think, though the observer who holds these > > > assumptions will create associations which mean something, > whether > > > they are true or not. This is why people see these patterns but > > still > > > suffer from them. People look for meanings to try to find meaning > > in > > > their life. They do this to resist the random chaos of the > > condensing > > > and thinning out of the divine VOID OF UNDIFFERENTIATED > > > CONSCIOUSNESS. But everything is everything else, there isn't any > > > this and other. Don't assume your associative trance minded > > observer > > > actually sees reality with any kind of real awareness. The > observer > > > only observes and sees itself. Eric Marcus, when I first saw him > at > > a > > > lecture in 1975, said, " We live in a world of mirrors and > everyone > > > thinks they are looking out. " Quantum Psychology would say, " The > I > > AM > > > has an observer which thinks it is looking out, when it is only > > > looking, oberving and seeing itself. The observer sees that which > > > they are trained to see and then it assumes it to be true. > > > > > > Question: Don't things move and change from one thing into > another? > > > > > > Answer: There isn't any movement, it's just an appearance of > > movement > > > because you identify as a self separate from that movement. > > > Everything is interconnected with everything else and everything > is > > > everything else. Movement implies a separate self to say it was > so. > > > The idea of a separate self " seeing " or " perceiving " movement is > an > > > idea only. This idea of a separate self is not separate from the > > idea > > > of movement itself. " > > > > > > From " The Way of the Human " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn <shawnregan> " <shawnregan> wrote: > That explains it, I have volumes 1 and 2 then. > > I was disappointed by " You Are That " . At first his obsessive quoting > of the personal pronouns " I " found cumbersome. He could have > explained in a paragraph like other authors do up front. Then the > session texts that were virtually all the same that comprised half > the book. Very tedious reading............... ------------------- You know what the solution to that is Shawn..... Write your own book. I did. And then I carried it out to the trash dumpster. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ....the peace that passeth understanding........ El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 Wow, Once I awoke in this dumpster when this manuscript fell half on my head and half into the lasagna dish next to my head whose aroma was causing culinary dreams of the Olive Garden. To make a long story short it was some of the most profound material I had ever read. How wonderful to finally find the author after all these years. > > You know what the solution to that is Shawn..... > > Write your own book. > > I did. > > And then I carried it out to the trash dumpster. > > ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh > ...the peace that passeth understanding........ > > El > > > . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 )) --- " Shawn <shawnregan " <shawnregan wrote: > Wow, > > Once I awoke in this dumpster when this manuscript > fell half on my > head and half into the lasagna dish next to my head > whose aroma was > causing culinary dreams of the Olive Garden. To make > a long story > short it was some of the most profound material I > had ever read. How > wonderful to finally find the author after all these > years. > > > > > > You know what the solution to that is Shawn..... > > > > Write your own book. > > > > I did. > > > > And then I carried it out to the trash dumpster. > > > > ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh > > ...the peace that passeth understanding........ > > > > El > > > > > > . > > > 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.