Free Will - Scott

[Guest guest]

> > > > > > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Scott.

 

According to the less then marks, this is the 8th generation of the

above.....er something like that...So, am not certain that Scott is the one

that wrote " *I am* is not a fact " ....but I think he did. What then is *I Am* ?

 

Inquiring minds want to know :-)

 

RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

i agree w/ u

 

there is no " i am " in reality

 

in fact, there is not a thing

 

 

Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email>

wrote:

>

>

> Hi there,

>

> Yes, I did write the below.

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Scott.

>

> <According to the less then marks, this is the 8th generation of

the

> above.....er something like that...So, am not certain that Scott is

the one

> that wrote " *I am* is not a fact " ....but I think he did.>

>

> <What then is *I Am* ?>

>

> 'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of

being or awareness.

>

> <Inquiring minds want to know :-)>

>

> Inquiring minds can never 'know'

>

> Kind Regards,

>

> Scott.

>

>

>

>

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>Hi there,

>

>Yes, I did write the below.

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Scott.

>

><According to the less then marks, this is the 8th generation of the

>above.....er something like that...So, am not certain that Scott is the one

>that wrote " *I am* is not a fact " ....but I think he did.>

>

><What then is *I Am* ?>

>

>'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of being

>or awareness.

>

><Inquiring minds want to know :-)>

>

>Inquiring minds can never 'know'

>

>Kind Regards,

>

>Scott.

 

 

Thanks, Scott....OK, if something is true then, you do not consider it also

a fact, I take it. Facts then are intellectual data only? irrespective of

their Truth? :-)

 

 

RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello again.

 

 

><What then is *I Am* ?>

>

>'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of being

>or awareness.

>

><Inquiring minds want to know :-)>

>

>Inquiring minds can never 'know'

>

>Kind Regards,

>

>Scott.

 

 

<Thanks, Scott....OK, if something is true then, you do not consider it also

a fact, I take it.>

 

Truth, or A truth is a definable consistency between the 'subjective self' and

the 'objective world it sees', truth is the defining of this consistency.

 

In order for truth to exist there *must* be an 'I' and a 'that'.

 

Facts can be true or false, they are 'bits of quantity, of knowledge or

information'.

 

<Facts then are intellectual data only?>

 

Yes, within a thinking mind, quantifiable knowledge, that can be true or false.

 

<irrespective of

their Truth? :-)>

 

 

Yes, facts can be true or false.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello,

 

<i agree w/ u

 

there is no " i am " in reality>

 

'I am' is a thought signpost / assertion, a thought that comes out of a thinking

ME that rises from the ocean.

 

The most *apt* thought straight from beingness.

 

'I am' is what God would say *if he could*

 

There is an 'I am' just as much as there IS trees, clouds, curtains rings,

taxes, can openers and bridges.

 

 

 

<in fact, there is not a thing>

 

Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling into nihilism.

 

Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it just isn't

*in itself real* and neither is anyTHING.

 

I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality of everything

is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of existence but not an absolute

one

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email>

wrote:

>

>

> Hi there,

>

> Yes, I did write the below.

>

>

> > > > > > > > > > ''*I am*'' is not a fact.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Scott.

>

> <According to the less then marks, this is the 8th generation of

the

> above.....er something like that...So, am not certain that Scott is

the one

> that wrote " *I am* is not a fact " ....but I think he did.>

>

> <What then is *I Am* ?>

>

> 'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of

being or awareness.

>

> <Inquiring minds want to know :-)>

>

> Inquiring minds can never 'know'

>

> Kind Regards,

>

> Scott.

>

>

>

>

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Bless your heart, Scott :-) You are positively brilliant!!!!!! I learned

>not too long ago of my intellectual limitations :-)(what a bloody ego

>bashing that was :-) Now I doff my chapeau at those like yourself,

>rather then run myself into the ground trying to keep pace :-)

 

 

Thank you for your " enlightenment " :-)

 

RL, FPI

 

 

>Hello again.

>

>

> ><What then is *I Am* ?>

> >

> >'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of being

> >or awareness.

> >

> ><Inquiring minds want to know :-)>

> >

> >Inquiring minds can never 'know'

> >

> >Kind Regards,

> >

> >Scott.

>

>

><Thanks, Scott....OK, if something is true then, you do not consider it also

>a fact, I take it.>

>

>Truth, or A truth is a definable consistency between the 'subjective self'

>and the 'objective world it sees', truth is the defining of this consistency.

>

>In order for truth to exist there *must* be an 'I' and a 'that'.

>

>Facts can be true or false, they are 'bits of quantity, of knowledge or

>information'.

>

><Facts then are intellectual data only?>

>

>Yes, within a thinking mind, quantifiable knowledge, that can be true or

>false.

>

><irrespective of

>their Truth? :-)>

>

>

>Yes, facts can be true or false.

>

>Kind Regards,

>

>Scott.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Scott writes:

>

>Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling into

>nihilism.

>

>Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it just

>isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING.

>

>I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality of

>everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of existence but

>not an absolute one

>

>Kind Regards,

>

>Scott.

 

hm.....doesn't the statement " Nothing IS " ...........automatically negate a

nihilistic interpretation?:-)

 

Can I get a point for that?...........rofl

 

 

RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email>

wrote:

>

>

> Hi there,

>

> Yes, I did write the below.

 

Well, then, you probably

wrote the above.

[Guest guest]

Hi again,

 

>Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling into

>nihilism.

>

>Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it just

>isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING.

>

>I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality of

>everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of existence but

>not an absolute one

 

 

<hm.....doesn't the statement " Nothing IS " ...........automatically negate a

nihilistic interpretation?:-)>

 

No, taken alone, it would point to a nihilistic interpretation.

 

It must be qualified, as in *nothing IS, in *itself* real, there has never been

anything *of itself* real.

 

EveryTHING is an appearance and disappearance, and nothing arises by itself, it

all arises as one.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi again,

 

>Bless your heart, Scott :-) You are positively brilliant!!!!!! I learned

>not too long ago of my intellectual limitations :-)(what a bloody ego

>bashing that was :-)>

 

Intellectualizing can help immensely, so long as it is completely thrown away

later.

 

<Now I doff my chapeau at those like yourself,

>rather then run myself into the ground trying to keep pace :-)>

 

It is not a matter of keeping pace, because this is not something you can think

about in any way that is accurate, but thinking about it does point.

 

Any question about knowledge and facts will bring an answer related to the same.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

 

 

 

> ><What then is *I Am* ?>

> >

> >'I am' is a statement to describe the self-asserting experience of being

> >or awareness.

> >

> ><Inquiring minds want to know :-)>

> >

> >Inquiring minds can never 'know'

> >

> >Kind Regards,

> >

> >Scott.

>

>

><Thanks, Scott....OK, if something is true then, you do not consider it also

>a fact, I take it.>

>

>Truth, or A truth is a definable consistency between the 'subjective self'

>and the 'objective world it sees', truth is the defining of this consistency.

>

>In order for truth to exist there *must* be an 'I' and a 'that'.

>

>Facts can be true or false, they are 'bits of quantity, of knowledge or

>information'.

>

><Facts then are intellectual data only?>

>

>Yes, within a thinking mind, quantifiable knowledge, that can be true or

>false.

>

><irrespective of

>their Truth? :-)>

>

>

>Yes, facts can be true or false.

>

>Kind Regards,

>

>Scott.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>Hi again,

>

> >Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling into

> >nihilism.

> >

> >Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it just

> >isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING.

> >

> >I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality of

> >everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of existence but

> >not an absolute one

>

>

><hm.....doesn't the statement " Nothing IS " ...........automatically negate a

>nihilistic interpretation?:-)>

>

>No, taken alone, it would point to a nihilistic interpretation.

>

>It must be qualified, as in *nothing IS, in *itself* real, there has never

>been anything *of itself* real.

>

>EveryTHING is an appearance and disappearance, and nothing arises by

>itself, it all arises as one.

>

>Kind Regards,

>

>Scott.

 

Dear Scott...you missed the point perhaps... if " nothing " (which is

nothing) " IS " (implying something existing, i.e., ISness (whatever that

is:-) it not only gives me a headache to think about (that Nothing

Exists,,,IS and IS NOT simultaneously) then at best case scenario....the

Isness negates the Nothing....which I interpret as Not Nihilistic

:-)...gee...I actually can think but must admit it is painful :-)

 

RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi again,

 

Dear Scott...you missed the point perhaps... if " nothing " (which is

nothing) " IS " (implying something existing, i.e., ISness (whatever that

is:-) it not only gives me a headache to think about (that Nothing

Exists,,,IS and IS NOT simultaneously) then at best case scenario....the

Isness negates the Nothing....which I interpret as Not Nihilistic

:-)...gee...I actually can think but must admit it is painful :-)>

 

Ok, yes I see what you mean and you are right in saying .... IS negates

nihilism.

 

What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is real.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>

>Hi again,

>

>Dear Scott...you missed the point perhaps... if " nothing " (which is

>nothing) " IS " (implying something existing, i.e., ISness (whatever that

>is:-) it not only gives me a headache to think about (that Nothing

>Exists,,,IS and IS NOT simultaneously) then at best case scenario....the

>Isness negates the Nothing....which I interpret as Not Nihilistic

>:-)...gee...I actually can think but must admit it is painful :-)>

>

>Ok, yes I see what you mean and you are right in saying .... IS negates

>nihilism.

>

>What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is real.

>

>Kind Regards,

>

>Scott.

Puzzactly, Scott :-)....goes without saying (obviously NOT) that nothing IS

in itself real :-).........rofl.......I need an aspirin or a drink

.....signing off thinking for the day :-)

 

 

RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

the ME or " i am " doesn't rise out of the ocean... the actual " i am "

is beyond description... it has no qualities whatsoever... it is

neither born nor does it die... timeless... it is incontrovertible

 

" I AM THAT I AM " (exodus 3:14)

 

everything has a relative aspect but it also has an absolute aspect,

too... this can be seen when u see that nothing u see is u... hence,

all relativity breaks down in the absolute realization of yourself...

u r absolute... everything is relative to u... in u, all things merge

with the absolute...

 

yours, too

 

danananda

 

 

Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email>

wrote:

>

>

> Hello,

>

> <i agree w/ u

>

> there is no " i am " in reality>

>

> 'I am' is a thought signpost / assertion, a thought that comes out

of a thinking ME that rises from the ocean.

>

> The most *apt* thought straight from beingness.

>

> 'I am' is what God would say *if he could*

>

> There is an 'I am' just as much as there IS trees, clouds, curtains

rings, taxes, can openers and bridges.

>

>

>

> <in fact, there is not a thing>

>

> Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling

into nihilism.

>

> Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it

just isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING.

>

> I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality

of everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of

existence but not an absolute one

>

> Kind Regards,

>

> Scott.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi again,

 

<the ME or " i am " doesn't rise out of the ocean... the actual " i am " is beyond

description...>

 

ME does not = 'I am'

 

There is no 'actual', seeming or real 'I AM'

 

There is truly no I AM, it is the first descriptive thought of mentation from

'out of' THAT.

 

Or, there IS an 'I AM' *just as much* as there IS anyTHING or anyTHOUGHT ELSE.

 

'I am' is a thought description 'out of' that ocean, but it cannot ARISE without

a ME or reflected self to say it or think it.

 

'I AM' is what GOD would say *IF HE COULD*, it is still a phenomenal projection.

 

<it has no qualities whatsoever... it is

neither born nor does it die... timeless... it is incontrovertible>

''''''IT''''''', the nameless THAT, that WE are talking about......

 

 

" I AM THAT I AM " (exodus 3:14)

 

<everything has a relative aspect but it also has an absolute aspect,

too... this can be seen when u see that nothing u see is u...>

 

Yes, EveryTHING is relatively real.

 

<hence,

all relativity breaks down in the absolute realization of yourself...

u r absolute... everything is relative to u... in u, all things merge

with the absolute... >

 

And, there is no 'you' and 'me'.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

 

 

 

 

 

yours, too

 

danananda

 

 

Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email>

wrote:

>

>

> Hello,

>

> <i agree w/ u

>

> there is no " i am " in reality>

>

> 'I am' is a thought signpost / assertion, a thought that comes out

of a thinking ME that rises from the ocean.

>

> The most *apt* thought straight from beingness.

>

> 'I am' is what God would say *if he could*

>

> There is an 'I am' just as much as there IS trees, clouds, curtains

rings, taxes, can openers and bridges.

>

>

>

> <in fact, there is not a thing>

>

> Nothing IS, but the statement must be qualified to avoid falling

into nihilism.

>

> Things ARE, right now, this letter you are reading IS right now, it

just isn't *in itself real* and neither is anyTHING.

>

> I think the best way to avoid the sillyness of denying the reality

of everything is to say that everyTHING has a relative level of

existence but not an absolute one

>

> Kind Regards,

>

> Scott.

>

 

 

 

 

**

 

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription,

sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

 

/mygroups?edit=1

 

Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group

and click on Save Changes.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is

real.

>

> Kind Regards,

>

> Scott.

>

 

 

Scott, what does that mean precisely? And what good is it to us to

say that or realize it? I have a tough time with the whole vedanta

notion that the world comes into being when we wake up in the morning.

 

When I say that a table is real, it is because that concept is useful

in the sense that I can then " really " put my coffee cup on it, and

will hurt my knee if I bump into it. What more than that would

realizing that its " not real in itself " do for me?

 

I can get a glimmer of the idea that " consciousness " is creating all

this, but why does that make it any less " real in itself " than

if " God " or the " Great Spirit " created it?

 

I'm not intending to dispute your statement, but its the sort of

thing I can't quite grasp and wonder if you could amplify.

 

Sven

[Guest guest]

>

> > What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is

>real.

> >

> > Kind Regards,

> >

> > Scott.

> >

>

>

>Scott, what does that mean precisely? And what good is it to us to

>say that or realize it? I have a tough time with the whole vedanta

>notion that the world comes into being when we wake up in the morning.

>

>When I say that a table is real, it is because that concept is useful

>in the sense that I can then " really " put my coffee cup on it, and

>will hurt my knee if I bump into it. What more than that would

>realizing that its " not real in itself " do for me?

>

>I can get a glimmer of the idea that " consciousness " is creating all

>this, but why does that make it any less " real in itself " than

>if " God " or the " Great Spirit " created it?

>

>I'm not intending to dispute your statement, but its the sort of

>thing I can't quite grasp and wonder if you could amplify.

>

>Sven

 

am definitely not Scott nor do I presume to be.....but I might have an

answer...Not sure that vendanta says the world comes into being when you

wake up.....my understanding is that we really can't prove that that is NOT

the case (sort of like proving or disproving the existence of God).

 

Am assuming Scott is saying that everything we

see/feel/touch/taste/etc. IS real in the manifest world (what we see)

but my understanding is that none of it exists independently arising on

its own...independent of God/Totality/Consciousness, etc......it's sort of

the vendanta twist on the Buddhist suttra (Heart?) form is

emptiness/emptiness is form notion (which gave me many

headaches...needlessly...it's not that complicated)

 

A dzogchen monk said much the same thing but in his thick Tibetan accent

added " But watch the hole in path...tho no exist, can still break leg if

trip in it " :-)

 

RL, FPI

[Guest guest]

Hi Sven,

 

> What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is

real.>

 

 

<Scott, what does that mean precisely?>

 

It means that nothing in the entire manifestation has any inherently real

existence, everything owes it existence to everything else as a dependence of

relationships. It all arises as one and never a thing in itself.

 

Anything physical is not fundamentally real, in the physical world the continuum

of mind / consciousness creates and uncreates, things arise and disappear, all

ghosts upon the screen, and this also includes 'us', 'you' and 'me' also;

apparitions of appearance.

 

The nature of the phenomenon of the world is of the same essential fluxing

nature as thoughts in a mind and it has no more real or credible steadfastness

than thoughts occurring in a mind.

 

Everything passes through fluxing change within 'universal mind', there is

nothing you can hold onto with a sense of sureness and true ownership is

impossible.

 

How did I hope to grab onto to a piece of the universe and say 'this is mine'!

 

We do not own anything, nobody owns anything, the only owner owns through

*identity*.

 

There are a wonderful few lines from the Diamond Sutra which point out this

fundamental way of the world;

 

Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:

 

A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;

A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,

A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.

 

<And what good is it to us to

say that or realize it?>

 

This is a very good question.

 

Firstly, let me say that this is a question that only you can truly answer

properly for *yourself*, and it is a question that only you *should* answer for

yourself without relying upon the views of others.

 

That is not to say that you shouldn't consider anothers view, but that

ultimately you should form your own opinion in regard to this. The 'good' that

you will realize or the good that comes from this is a very personal thing and

it probably depends much on how you see things now and your own personal

spiritual practice and belief.

 

For your consideration, I will say that it allows you to put your viewpoint of

life into a more realistic and *correct* perspective, allows you to act with

more wisdom than would be possible not knowing this, allows you to see things

how they really are without being under the common illusion, inspires you to

seek what is really important and to avoid wasting time on those things not

important, turns the mind away from material interests to those of spiritual

practice or philosophical inquiry which in turn leads to the investigation of

self knowledge.

 

>I have a tough time with the whole vedanta

notion that the world comes into being when we wake up in the morning.When I say

that a table is real, it is because that concept is useful

in the sense that I can then " really " put my coffee cup on it, and

will hurt my knee if I bump into it. What more than that would

realizing that its " not real in itself " do for me?>

 

Don't take things too literally!

 

A lot of the Indian material is clinically very sterile and it won't make sense

to just read it and think *that is the way things are* because they never

qualify statements with anything else. It is *never* that cut and dry.

 

<I can get a glimmer of the idea that " consciousness " is creating all

this, but why does that make it any less " real in itself " than

if " God " or the " Great Spirit " created it? >

 

The whole world IS consciousness or mind and it is VERY real, but nothing as a

single thing like a coffee cup is REAL IN ITSELF, it's a ghost, a vanishing as

much as it is an appearance.

 

What you call 'God' or anything else 'divine' is simply your projection of

reality onto itself. 'God' is minds highest conception *of itself*.

 

But Gods do exist, we create them, and within the spectrum of consciousness that

IS the world there are many different flavours of consciousness, some are called

'Gods'.

 

<I'm not intending to dispute your statement, but its the sort of

thing I can't quite grasp and wonder if you could amplify.>

 

Hope the above helps.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " svenchadodi " <svenchadodi>

wrote:

> > What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is

> real.

> >

> > Kind Regards,

> >

> > Scott.

> >

>

>

> Scott, what does that mean precisely? And what good is it to us to

> say that or realize it? I have a tough time with the whole vedanta

> notion that the world comes into being when we wake up in the

morning.

 

Ha! Wrong. Waking up in the morning is just a memory in the present

moment. The world does not come into being when we wake up, the world

comes into being NOW. It takes zero seconds for the entire world to

be created. There never has been any past. The past is just an

illusion of a history track created IN THIS VERY MOMENT. :-)

 

>

> When I say that a table is real, it is because that concept is

useful

> in the sense that I can then " really " put my coffee cup on it, and

> will hurt my knee if I bump into it. What more than that would

> realizing that its " not real in itself " do for me?

 

See the ENTIRE world including your body and mind as something being

not you. See the world as a projection in pure consciousness. You

yourself are always pure untouchable. You are the Source that creates

_everything_.

 

>

> I can get a glimmer of the idea that " consciousness " is creating

all

> this, but why does that make it any less " real in itself " than

> if " God " or the " Great Spirit " created it?

>

> I'm not intending to dispute your statement, but its the sort of

> thing I can't quite grasp and wonder if you could amplify.

>

> Sven

 

The world is not real because there is no life in the world. Your

body is only a dead history track being created now, a

_very_ " recent " memory track, but still only a dead past. What is

alive is awareness.

 

You feel your body as being alive, but when you watch TV, is a person

on the TV screen alive? It is exactly the same thing with everything

in the material world. Everything in it is already dead. I don't mean

dead in a negative sense, but dead as being just a 3D projection.

What do you do with the most advanced and intelligent 3D projection

there is? You enjoy it! That is the meaning of life which is pure

awareness. The meaning of life is to enjoy the projection/creation to

the maximum. You yourself may be deathless or not, but let me assure

you, you are not anything in this world, not your body, not your

thoughts. You are the _experiencer_ of it.

 

/AL

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

 

> Ha! Wrong. Waking up in the morning is just a memory in the present

> moment. The world does not come into being when we wake up, the

world

> comes into being NOW.

 

>It takes zero seconds for the entire world to

> be created. There never has been any past.>

 

 

The behaviour of the phenomenon IS time, so it takes no time IT IS

TIME itself.

 

 

>The past is just an

> illusion of a history track created IN THIS VERY MOMENT. :-)

 

 

A track in NOW, objects appear and disappear and 'create time' in the

middle ( by the behaviour of the phenomenon ( or mind ))

 

 

 

> See the ENTIRE world including your body and mind as something

being

> not you. See the world as a projection in pure consciousness. You

> yourself are always pure untouchable. You are the Source that

creates

> _everything_.

 

 

There is no projection, the world *is* MIND.

 

 

> The world is not real because there is no life in the world.>

 

 

There is no square inch of the world that *isn't* alive, it is all

very much ALIVE.

 

 

<Your

> body is only a dead history track being created now, a

> _very_ " recent " memory track, but still only a dead past. What is

> alive is awareness.>

 

 

The body, ( and everything else ), 'passes through' the same NOW as

moving phenomenon. The potential for things to happen and occurr

is 'only' the potential for movement in space, which IS amongst

whatever else we want to label it, time.

 

 

>

> You feel your body as being alive, but when you watch TV, is a

person

> on the TV screen alive? It is exactly the same thing with

everything

> in the material world. Everything in it is already dead. I don't

mean

> dead in a negative sense, but dead as being just a 3D projection.

 

 

It is all alive.

 

 

 

> What do you do with the most advanced and intelligent 3D projection

> there is? You enjoy it!>

 

 

Who enjoys?

There must BE a ME to enjoy *this* and any enjoyment is being enjoyed

*through* a ME or reflected self.

 

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water

 

 

 

>That is the meaning of life which is pure

> awareness. The meaning of life is to enjoy the projection/creation

to

> the maximum.>

 

 

The 'meaning of life' and there is not a ONE to speak of, is the

unique personal subjectification of a reflected self, ( self under

reflection of itself ), unique and exclusive to every reflected self.

 

The total doesn't *need* a purpose, it IS, purpose is created and

projected by reflected selves. But every subjectification of purpose

or *anything* is also part of what makes the whole what IT IS

( 'moment by moment ' ).

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

[Guest guest]

Ramesh Belsaker uses the metaphor of a bracelet that cannot be

seperated from the gold it was made from. It has no independent

existence.

 

cheers

 

Eric

 

Nisargadatta , " svenchadodi " <svenchadodi>

wrote:

> > What I meant by saying 'nothing IS' is that nothing IN ITSELF is

> real.

> >

> > Kind Regards,

> >

> > Scott.

> >

>

>

> Scott, what does that mean precisely? And what good is it to us to

> say that or realize it? I have a tough time with the whole vedanta

> notion that the world comes into being when we wake up in the

morning.

>

> When I say that a table is real, it is because that concept is

useful

> in the sense that I can then " really " put my coffee cup on it, and

> will hurt my knee if I bump into it. What more than that would

> realizing that its " not real in itself " do for me?

>

> I can get a glimmer of the idea that " consciousness " is creating

all

> this, but why does that make it any less " real in itself " than

> if " God " or the " Great Spirit " created it?

>

> I'm not intending to dispute your statement, but its the sort of

> thing I can't quite grasp and wonder if you could amplify.

>

> Sven

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen "

<sga_email> wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

>

> > Ha! Wrong. Waking up in the morning is just a memory in the

present

> > moment. The world does not come into being when we wake up, the

> world

> > comes into being NOW.

>

> >It takes zero seconds for the entire world to

> > be created. There never has been any past.>

>

>

> The behaviour of the phenomenon IS time, so it takes no time IT IS

> TIME itself.

>

>

> >The past is just an

> > illusion of a history track created IN THIS VERY MOMENT. :-)

>

>

> A track in NOW, objects appear and disappear and 'create time' in

the

> middle ( by the behaviour of the phenomenon ( or mind ))

>

>

>

> > See the ENTIRE world including your body and mind as something

> being

> > not you. See the world as a projection in pure consciousness. You

> > yourself are always pure untouchable. You are the Source that

> creates

> > _everything_.

>

>

> There is no projection, the world *is* MIND.

>

>

> > The world is not real because there is no life in the world.>

>

>

> There is no square inch of the world that *isn't* alive, it is all

> very much ALIVE.

>

>

> <Your

> > body is only a dead history track being created now, a

> > _very_ " recent " memory track, but still only a dead past. What is

> > alive is awareness.>

>

>

> The body, ( and everything else ), 'passes through' the same NOW as

> moving phenomenon. The potential for things to happen and occurr

> is 'only' the potential for movement in space, which IS amongst

> whatever else we want to label it, time.

>

>

> >

> > You feel your body as being alive, but when you watch TV, is a

> person

> > on the TV screen alive? It is exactly the same thing with

> everything

> > in the material world. Everything in it is already dead. I don't

> mean

> > dead in a negative sense, but dead as being just a 3D projection.

>

>

> It is all alive.

>

>

>

> > What do you do with the most advanced and intelligent 3D

projection

> > there is? You enjoy it!>

>

>

> Who enjoys?

> There must BE a ME to enjoy *this* and any enjoyment is being

enjoyed

> *through* a ME or reflected self.

>

> Don't throw the baby out with the bath water

>

>

>

> >That is the meaning of life which is pure

> > awareness. The meaning of life is to enjoy the

projection/creation

> to

> > the maximum.>

>

>

> The 'meaning of life' and there is not a ONE to speak of, is the

> unique personal subjectification of a reflected self, ( self under

> reflection of itself ), unique and exclusive to every reflected

self.

>

> The total doesn't *need* a purpose, it IS, purpose is created and

> projected by reflected selves. But every subjectification of

purpose

> or *anything* is also part of what makes the whole what IT IS

> ( 'moment by moment ' ).

>

> Kind Regards,

>

> Scott.

 

 

If everything is alive, what then is the difference between a dead

person and a person alive today? ;-)

 

/AL

[Guest guest]

Hi again,

 

 

> If everything is alive, what then is the difference between a dead

> person and a person alive today? ;-)

 

 

One has a physical body and the other doesn't.

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen "

<sga_email> wrote:

>

> Hi again,

>

>

> > If everything is alive, what then is the difference between a

dead

> > person and a person alive today? ;-)

>

>

> One has a physical body and the other doesn't.

>

>

> Kind Regards,

>

> Scott.

 

No one has a physical body. All material " things " are in reality No-

things. All things are empty in themselves. If you think something of

form has any reality, then show me the number 2. Have you seen the

number two anywhere in reality?

 

Consciousness is like an immovable screen and a film projector, the

material world like the images on the screen. We may look at a movie

and see a person in it. That person is not a separate entity.

Similarly, the human body is not a separate entity. No one " has " a

body. The body is just an appearance in consciousness. The world is

Maya.

 

/AL

[Guest guest]

Hi again,

 

 

> > > If everything is alive, what then is the difference between a

> dead

> > > person and a person alive today? ;-)

> >

> >

> > One has a physical body and the other doesn't.

> >

> >

> > Kind Regards,

> >

> > Scott.

 

 

> No one has a physical body.>

 

 

Every*one* ( human etc ) has a physical body.

No *who* owns a physical body.

 

Man is made up of many bodies of expression which allow consciousness

to act.

And this is a necessary part of what makes all this, ALL THIS.

 

It does no good to deny this interaction of the personal self with

the world, this interaction is what makes what IS, WHAT IS.

 

Denying this is missing one half of one whole truth.

 

 

 

<All material " things " are in reality No-

> things. All things are empty in themselves.>

 

 

All things are not real in themselves, temporary arisings, yes.

 

 

>If you think something of

> form has any reality, then show me the number 2.>

 

 

Hold up both arms.

 

 

 

>Have you seen the

> number two anywhere in reality?

 

See above.

 

 

> Consciousness is like an immovable screen and a film projector, the

> material world like the images on the screen. We may look at a

movie

> and see a person in it.>

 

 

A metaphor of consciousness is like the above, but consciousness

itself is nothing like this or anything else, there is no screen and

no projector.

 

Every reflected self contributes in making 'that movie' what it is.

 

 

> That person is not a separate entity.>

 

 

AS a separate entity they ARE a separate entity.

 

Nothing exists IN separation there is a subtle but important

difference.

 

Chuang Tzu said a very wise thing a long time ago which says this

beautifully;

 

'The BEING of SEPARATE beings is non separate BEING'

 

This is different from saying that the person is not a separate

entity.

 

 

 

> Similarly, the human body is not a separate entity. No one " has " a

> body.>

 

 

The human body is a separate entity, it is just not *owned* by a who.

 

 

>The body is just an appearance in consciousness. The world is

> Maya.>

 

 

EveryTHING IS mind / consciousness not an appearance IN it.

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> /AL