Guest guest Report post Posted June 12, 2004 > >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 Wrought from the profound depth of a Sage, a metaphysical analogy sparkles with the wisdom of a multi faceted diamond. The sage that deftly parses words into such an illustrious gem does so with skill and mastery rivaling that of the gifted surgeon. Both bring healing balm; one to the angst of the soul, the other to the body. Yet these same skills usurped and mangled by less capable craftsmen, irrespective of their insistence of apotheosis, result in an attainment almost nearing the quality of artistry found in the local butcher shop. The difference is that the butcher, given time, will show improvement. Anon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 12, 2004 Hi Eric, <Ramesh Belsaker uses the metaphor of a bracelet that cannot be seperated from the gold it was made from. It has no independent existence.> Actually, I don't think that is a very good example to show why things are not inherently real, maybe he was talking about something else like consciousness or mind? Really, everything is dependent upon everything else as in a relationship with the whole, all inter-related, so that nothing arises OF itself, the only 'thing' OF ITSELF is the whole. All things arise and vanish, ghosts and apparitions, they are therefore not inherently real 'to begin with', objects 'spend more time' being nothing than they ever do being objects Kind Regards, Scott. 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 ** 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 yeah... i am... me... you... absolutely... relative to whatever... in between everything & nothing... it's all just a manner of speaking... that is all... you appear to be of the no-self school, also... there r quite a few on this forum... what we r is beyond words, beyond worlds... that's the difficulty... it is hard to realize because it can't be realized... it is realized when 1 realizes it can't be realized... it's all very tricky stuff... yes, indeed yours danananda Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Hi again, > yeah... i am... me... you... absolutely... relative to whatever... in > between everything & nothing... > > it's all just a manner of speaking... that is all... Yes, it is. But it also does help when discussing these things that everyone agree on what is being spoken about and that words are not used too 'loosely' or words that have different meanings are not substituted one for the other. > > you appear to be of the no-self school, also... there r quite a few > on this forum... I am 'against' the personalization and clinging of and to paths and practices etc whether it be Zen Buddhism, Theravada, Western esotericism, Paganism or New Age material. I think the defence and clinging to a path that occurrs as a form of spiritual materialism is one of the biggest 'obstacles' to realization. I know this was not what you meant in the case of your question but I wanted to make a point of it whilst here. The Buddhist no-self idea is meant to be a worm on a hook that leads to investigation of what this really means, i.e what does the non- existence of self in phenomenon really mean? > > what we r is beyond words, beyond worlds... that's the difficulty... > it is hard to realize because it can't be realized... it is realized > when 1 realizes it can't be realized... it's all very tricky stuff... > > yes, indeed Yes, indeed Kind Regards, Scott. > > Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> > wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 " So what is this Self? Who exactly are we? The aShTAvakra gItA has much to say about our real nature. One sutra claims the following: You are not the body, the body is not 'yours'. Sir, you are neither an 'enjoyer' nor a 'doer'. You are Consciousness itself, the eternal, disinterested witness - be happy! Our problems are caused by what Advaita calls adhyAsa, meaning 'superimposition'. As a result of our ignorance, we fail to see the truth that is in front of us, so to speak. The classic metaphor tells us that it is as if we encounter a rope on our path but believe it to be a snake. We are deluded by what is called mAyA. The 'veiling power' or AvaraNa prevents us from seeing the reality of the rope, while the 'projecting power' or vikshepa superimposes the image of the snake. Similarly, we are prevented from seeing our true nature of eternal existence-consciousness-bliss and instead superimpose the false image of 'little me', living a very limited, miserable existence and doomed to extinction. In reality, there is only the Self. There are no 'others', no objects, no separateness of any kind; no time, space or causation. All of these things and concepts are mistakes produced by our mind in its ignorance. A metaphor used to explain this says that it as if we see all the waves in the sea and believe them to be separate entities, not realising that they are only transient forms of the one, undifferentiated ocean. Gold rings, necklaces and ornaments etc. are each perceived as being unique. But if a ring is melted down and made into a bangle, it is the same gold as before, merely assuming a new name and form. So with us. We believe ourselves to be separate individuals with our own body and mind, unique and vulnerable. But these are only name and form of the one, undifferentiated reality, which is Consciousness. As Ramesh Balsekar says: All there is is Consciousness - Consciousness is all there is. We also believe that we are 'doers' and 'enjoyers' and that we have free will to enable us to choose how to act. Unfortunately, it is not possible to think or talk about 'reality'; it is beyond concepts or words. " Ramesh balsekar http://www.advaita.org.uk/real.htm Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > <Ramesh Belsaker uses the metaphor of a bracelet that cannot be > seperated from the gold it was made from. It has no independent > existence.> > > Actually, I don't think that is a very good example to show why things are not inherently real, maybe he was talking about something else like consciousness or mind? > > Really, everything is dependent upon everything else as in a relationship with the whole, all inter-related, so that nothing arises OF itself, the only 'thing' OF ITSELF is the whole. > > All things arise and vanish, ghosts and apparitions, they are therefore not inherently real 'to begin with', objects 'spend more time' being nothing than they ever do being objects > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > 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 > > > > ** > > 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. > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Sorry, I just realised that might wasn't Ramesh, but I'm pretty sure he used the metaphor himself at one point somewhere !! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Hi again Eric, > " So what is this Self? Who exactly are we?> Some nice easy questions! You could have started with a warm up, something like 'How do you make a good Bloody Mary?' >The aShTAvakra gItA has > much to say about our real nature. One sutra claims the following: > > You are not the body, the body is not 'yours'. Sir, you are neither > an 'enjoyer' nor a 'doer'. You are Consciousness itself, the eternal, > disinterested witness - be happy!> This is a pointer the same as the computer or your coffee cup, both point to the same thing. > The 'veiling power' or AvaraNa prevents us from seeing the reality of > the rope, while the 'projecting power' or vikshepa superimposes the > image of the snake. Similarly, we are prevented from seeing our true > nature of eternal existence-consciousness-bliss and instead > superimpose the false image of 'little me', living a very limited, > miserable existence and doomed to extinction. But WHO or WHAT veils? There is no 'little me' there is ME, and me is the thing that veils, but the ME is not *really* real. The 'little me' that is 'superimposed' is the superimpoSER. > In reality, there is only the Self. There are no 'others', no > objects, no separateness of any kind; no time, space or causation. > All of these things and concepts are mistakes produced by our mind in > its ignorance. A metaphor used to explain this says that it as if we > see all the waves in the sea and believe them to be separate > entities, not realising that they are only transient forms of the > one, undifferentiated ocean. Gold rings, necklaces and ornaments etc. > are each perceived as being unique. But if a ring is melted down and > made into a bangle, it is the same gold as before, merely assuming a > new name and form.> Yes, all forms of mind / mental matter, changing forms of mentation within universal mind. 'Thoughts or ideas' within universal mind. But objects are still objects, mountains are still mountains, and taxes are still taxes. > So with us. We believe ourselves to be separate individuals with our > own body and mind, unique and vulnerable. But these are only name and > form of the one, undifferentiated reality, which is Consciousness.> Our body / mind IS a *part of what we are*, *why* try to exclude it? >As > Ramesh Balsekar says: All there is is Consciousness - Consciousness > is all there is. We also believe that we are 'doers' and 'enjoyers' > and that we have free will to enable us to choose how to act.> As I think I already said, I disagree with Ramesh Balsekar when he says point blank, 'There is no such thing as free will'. There IS, but it all depends on ones perspective, perspective really is everything. Free will both does and does not exist and there is absolutely no contradiction in this. You cannot use law of excluded middle logic in explaining reality, in other words it is best to avoid straight yes or nos! > Unfortunately, it is not possible to think or talk about 'reality'; > it is beyond concepts or words. " Yes, but words are not something outside THAT reality, they are 'within' it. But yes, they cannot describe, only point, but doesn't EVERYTHING point to the same 'thing'? Kind Regards, Scott. > > <Ramesh Belsaker uses the metaphor of a bracelet that cannot be > > seperated from the gold it was made from. It has no independent > > existence.> > > > > Actually, I don't think that is a very good example to show why > things are not inherently real, maybe he was talking about something > else like consciousness or mind? > > > > Really, everything is dependent upon everything else as in a > relationship with the whole, all inter-related, so that nothing > arises OF itself, the only 'thing' OF ITSELF is the whole. > > > > All things arise and vanish, ghosts and apparitions, they are > therefore not inherently real 'to begin with', objects 'spend more > time' being nothing than they ever do being objects > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ** > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 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.> > > > 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. Whe we go and see a movie we don't deny the existence of the movie. Similarly, we cannot deny the existence of the world, however, and here I go again for the umpteenth time: the world is only the past. Every sane scientist will confirm this. Why scientists today deny this obvious fact (or are blind to it) is something for you to look into. > > > > <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. Here is another two: 2, but it is not actually the _real_ number two - it is just a representation made out of pixels. > > > > 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. I guess that there is only One Contributor. You are living under the spell of the ego my friend. Snap out of it! ;-) > > > > 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. Yes, and a character in a movie is a separate entity. But only in appearance. > > > >The body is just an appearance in consciousness. The world is > > Maya.> > > > EveryTHING IS mind / consciousness not an appearance IN it. Yes, that may be so. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , RL_FPI@x wrote: > > > >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 > > > Wrought from the profound depth of a Sage, a metaphysical analogy sparkles > with the wisdom of a multi faceted diamond. The sage that deftly parses > words into such an illustrious gem does so with skill and mastery rivaling > that of the gifted surgeon. Both bring healing balm; one to the angst of > the soul, the other to the body. Yet these same skills usurped and mangled > by less capable craftsmen, irrespective of their insistence of apotheosis, > result in an attainment almost nearing the quality of artistry found in the > local butcher shop. The difference is that the butcher, given time, will > show improvement. > > Anon Well, nothing is being done. Everything just is. The entire world is a spontaneous manifestation without anyone doing anything. Existence is effortless. Personal effort is an illusion you really do not need. Pride is the last stronghold of the ego, but when the ego sees that it is indeed all alone, for real, then pride has only meaning in the form of entertainment. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > " So what is this Self? Who exactly are we? The aShTAvakra gItA has > much to say about our real nature. One sutra claims the following: > > You are not the body, the body is not 'yours'. Sir, you are neither > an 'enjoyer' nor a 'doer'. You are Consciousness itself, the eternal, > disinterested witness - be happy! > > Our problems are caused by what Advaita calls adhyAsa, > meaning 'superimposition'. As a result of our ignorance, we fail to > see the truth that is in front of us, so to speak. The classic > metaphor tells us that it is as if we encounter a rope on our path > but believe it to be a snake. We are deluded by what is called mAyA. > The 'veiling power' or AvaraNa prevents us from seeing the reality of > the rope, while the 'projecting power' or vikshepa superimposes the > image of the snake. Similarly, we are prevented from seeing our true > nature of eternal existence-consciousness-bliss and instead > superimpose the false image of 'little me', living a very limited, > miserable existence and doomed to extinction. > > In reality, there is only the Self. There are no 'others', no > objects, no separateness of any kind; no time, space or causation. > All of these things and concepts are mistakes produced by our mind in > its ignorance. A metaphor used to explain this says that it as if we > see all the waves in the sea and believe them to be separate > entities, not realising that they are only transient forms of the > one, undifferentiated ocean. Gold rings, necklaces and ornaments etc. > are each perceived as being unique. But if a ring is melted down and > made into a bangle, it is the same gold as before, merely assuming a > new name and form. > > So with us. We believe ourselves to be separate individuals with our > own body and mind, unique and vulnerable. But these are only name and > form of the one, undifferentiated reality, which is Consciousness. As > Ramesh Balsekar says: All there is is Consciousness - Consciousness > is all there is. We also believe that we are 'doers' and 'enjoyers' > and that we have free will to enable us to choose how to act. > > Unfortunately, it is not possible to think or talk about 'reality'; > it is beyond concepts or words. " > > > Ramesh balsekar > > http://www.advaita.org.uk/real.htm Yes! The snake in the rope. Know that this is a description of the *entire* manifested world. It is not the world that is alive, it is your *own* awareness that is alive. The world is a rope appearing as a snake. There never has been any living persons. Don't think you are a person. Think that you are all that you observe. Then there will be no separation. Then a false illusion of separation will fall away, nothing more, nothing less. I cannot say that this is the truth, but it seems logical to my mind. The truth of this must establish itself in one's own heart. Then there will be no doubt about this. That is my hope. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> > wrote: > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > <Ramesh Belsaker uses the metaphor of a bracelet that cannot be > > seperated from the gold it was made from. It has no independent > > existence.> > > > > Actually, I don't think that is a very good example to show why > things are not inherently real, maybe he was talking about something > else like consciousness or mind? > > > > Really, everything is dependent upon everything else as in a > relationship with the whole, all inter-related, so that nothing > arises OF itself, the only 'thing' OF ITSELF is the whole. > > > > All things arise and vanish, ghosts and apparitions, they are > therefore not inherently real 'to begin with', objects 'spend more > time' being nothing than they ever do being objects > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ** > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Hi again, > > > 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. <<<<<<> Whe we go and see a movie we don't deny the existence of the movie.>>>>>> We are also not talking about denying the movie AS a participant in it. *You* are a part of that movie. And, AS a ME out of *necessity* of *interaction* you participate along with every other reflected self. <<<<<<> Similarly, we cannot deny the existence of the world, however, and > here I go again for the umpteenth time: the world is only the past.>>>>>> The denying of the reality of the world and the claiming of the reality of the world is only *possible* for a reflected self, a ME. Nothing else can *say it* and any claim you make is also part of what is. The 'thing' that is denying the existence is denying that it exists also which is proof that it does. Whether you say I/the world don't exist or I/the world do exist, both show a distinguisher or discrimination and that is a me or reflected self, it makes no difference either way, because a me must be present. > Every sane scientist will confirm this. Why scientists today deny > this obvious fact (or are blind to it) is something for you to look > into.>>>>>> The world is not in the past, it is always NOW. Time *does not* change anything, phenomenon and the behaviour of whole mind creates time ( in space ). > > >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. <<<<<> Here is another two: 2, but it is not actually the _real_ number two - > it is just a representation made out of pixels.>>>> The 'real' number 2 is only a representation, the same mind you as anything, 'coffee cup' for instance, where is THE real coffee cup. > > Every reflected self contributes in making 'that movie' what it is. >>>>>> I guess that there is only One Contributor. You are living under the > spell of the ego my friend. Snap out of it! ;-)>>>> You cannot apply the law of excluded middle logic to spiritual or reality concerns There is *both* the actions of individual personal selves which *include* what they are; ( e.g their personal self as a me and ego ) and wholeness as a bound up whole, all these reflected selves make the whole unity what it is *moment by moment*. Both of these occurr at the *same 'time'*, these two are one. Beware the half truth. > > > 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. >>>>> Yes, and a character in a movie is a separate entity. But only in > appearance.>>>>> No. Again, Chuang Tzu, " The **BEING** of SEPARATE beings is non-separate BEING " The world is not a movie or TV screen. Kind Regards, Scott. > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > > 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. > > > <<<<<<> Whe we go and see a movie we don't deny the existence of the > movie.>>>>>> > > > We are also not talking about denying the movie AS a participant in > it. > *You* are a part of that movie. > > And, AS a ME out of *necessity* of *interaction* you participate > along with every other reflected self. Yes, that is correct, but it is like Tony Parsons says: " Nothing is communicating with nothing " . There is no me communicating at all. The communication *and* the idea of a " me " as a communicator are created as a part of the same package. This is a way of looking at everything as Oneness. It can be difficult to understand Oneness when one thinks: " I communicate " , but it is only a matter of swithing to " Communication happens " . As an intellectual understanding this will not penetrate one's being. One must _feel_ communication happening as one wholeness. Then the reality of a " me " being a communicatior begins to be questioned. > > > > <<<<<<> Similarly, we cannot deny the existence of the world, > however, and > > here I go again for the umpteenth time: the world is only the > past.>>>>>> > > > The denying of the reality of the world and the claiming of the > reality of the world is only *possible* for a reflected self, a ME. Awareness aware of itself needs no " ME " as an " entity " . The " I observe " -idea is just a thought, and awareness observes that thought, but awareness does not *need* an " I " or a " ME " thought. Such thought would only be a speck of dust on the clear wind shield of awareness. The " ME " is only a speck of dust. Wipe it off! :-) > > Nothing else can *say it* and any claim you make is also part of what > is. > > The 'thing' that is denying the existence is denying that it exists > also which is proof that it does. > > Whether you say I/the world don't exist or I/the world do exist, both > show a distinguisher or discrimination and that is a me or reflected > self, it makes no difference either way, because a me must be present. There must be awareness and that which awareness is aware of. No " ME " is needed. The " ME " is just a thought, a thought is like a flower or a cloud: something observed. Who needs to stare at a " ME " thought all the time? Why not look at the flower and the cloud unclouded by a " ME " , so to speak? :-) The " ME " is just an add-on, a projection that often inludes a created past and future. And one must see that this " ME " is what creates suffering even though it contains many desires that blinds you from the truth. What truth? That you are a slave. Born into a prison you cannot see, touch or smell. A prison for your mind. Desires may appear innocent, and desirable, but they are always about what you don't now have. They are a trap. They take you away from natural UNCAUSED happiness in the present moment. They rob you from the Love that you are. When desires fall away, fear fall away. They go together. > > > > Every sane scientist will confirm this. Why scientists today deny > > this obvious fact (or are blind to it) is something for you to look > > into.>>>>>> > > > The world is not in the past, it is always NOW. > Time *does not* change anything, phenomenon and the behaviour of > whole mind creates time ( in space ). Yes, the past is now, but the past is the observed and awareness is the observer. They are not two, but the observed changes and is in that sense not the solid foundation for reality. Awareness is the solid foundation for reality and is the Source from which past and future is being created in the single Now. > > > > > >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. > <<<<<> Here is another two: 2, but it is not actually the _real_ > number two - > > it is just a representation made out of pixels.>>>> > > > The 'real' number 2 is only a representation, the same mind you as > anything, 'coffee cup' for instance, where is THE real coffee cup. Exactly. This is what I think in Buddhism is called emptiness. Things in themseves have no independent existence. > > > > > > > Every reflected self contributes in making 'that movie' what it > is. > > > >>>>>> I guess that there is only One Contributor. You are living > under the > > spell of the ego my friend. Snap out of it! ;-)>>>> > > > You cannot apply the law of excluded middle logic to spiritual or > reality concerns That sounded like advanced wisdom. Could perhaps be true. ;-) > > There is *both* the actions of individual personal selves which > *include* what they are; ( e.g their personal self as a me and ego ) > and wholeness as a bound up whole, all these reflected selves make > the whole unity what it is *moment by moment*. Both of these occurr > at the *same 'time'*, these two are one. > > Beware the half truth. Watch your ego trying to hold on to both itself and something bigger at the same time. And this is sound, because before we actually See that there is something bigger than the ego we should be careful not to fall into self-created illusions about Oneness and stuff like that. I cling to my ego and observe it in action, and at the same time the truth about Oneness will reveal itself or not, but I am not letting my ego go, because that would be an illusionary letting go, I would then just be fooling myself. So I hope that that something Higher will reveal itself by grace. > > > > > > > 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. > > > >>>>> Yes, and a character in a movie is a separate entity. But only > in > > appearance.>>>>> > > > No. > > Again, Chuang Tzu, " The **BEING** of SEPARATE beings is non- separate > BEING " > > The world is not a movie or TV screen. The world could very well be a 3D " movie " , Maya, or a " virtual reality " being played by consciousness. Consciousness itself has no size, substance or form. The world is I believe just a " computer simulation " a la The Matrix created by this consciousness. Nothing in the world has any existence of its own. Everything is in reality a no- thing, a temporary appearance in consciousness, a 3D " simulation " . Think about this: how big is the material universe? This cannot be answered in an absolute sense, only in a relational sense, such as the size of your own body in _relation_ to the material universe. Seen as a totality it is impossible to say that the universe has a certain size. How can something that has no absolute size be said to be real? Consciousness can be absolute without having any absolute size. If you entered a virual reality world created by a computer and then walked around in it, you may see buildings in it that were 20 meters high. But these building would not be 20 meters high. They would only be a part of a computer program. The computer program is not 20 meters high. The computer program has no physical size. /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 i agree w/ u that the identification w/ a particular religious group or party can be an obstacle to spiritual growth... it is just another ego trip... all religions r nothing more than cults of one kind or another... i like nisargadatta because he doesn't really get into religion that much... i mean, he practiced various traditions that he was raised up in, but, he did not necessarily prescribe that for anybody else... he simply accepted who he was & it wasn't an issue for him... (he belonged to the navnath sampradaya or the nine masters lineage) ....getting back to the no-self issue... if there is no self, then what is this self that allegedly does not exist??? yours danananda Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > yeah... i am... me... you... absolutely... relative to whatever... > in > > between everything & nothing... > > > > it's all just a manner of speaking... that is all... > > > Yes, it is. > But it also does help when discussing these things that everyone > agree on what is being spoken about and that words are not used > too 'loosely' or words that have different meanings are not > substituted one for the other. > > > > > > > you appear to be of the no-self school, also... there r quite a few > > on this forum... > > > I am 'against' the personalization and clinging of and to paths and > practices etc whether it be Zen Buddhism, Theravada, Western > esotericism, Paganism or New Age material. > > I think the defence and clinging to a path that occurrs as a form of > spiritual materialism is one of the biggest 'obstacles' to > realization. > > I know this was not what you meant in the case of your question but I > wanted to make a point of it whilst here. > > The Buddhist no-self idea is meant to be a worm on a hook that leads > to investigation of what this really means, i.e what does the non- > existence of self in phenomenon really mean? > > > > > > what we r is beyond words, beyond worlds... that's the > difficulty... > > it is hard to realize because it can't be realized... it is > realized > > when 1 realizes it can't be realized... it's all very tricky > stuff... > > > > yes, indeed > > > Yes, indeed > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen > <sga_email> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Hi again, <i agree w/ u that the identification w/ a particular religious group or party can be an obstacle to spiritual growth... it is just another ego trip...>>>>> Yes, the defence, clinging and attachment to the path reinforces the existence of a ME. The path that gets defended and glorified as the means for realization, is nothing more than a construction or fabrication within mind, by mind, the defending and glorification is also mind touching mind, The person that follows the path is not the one that can bring it to fulfilment,live up to it's promises, or realize it's fruition. The defence, attachment and subjective glorification of that path is also a part of the apparent phenomenon, which itself gets abandoned once the goal to no-where is reached, Who is there to call a Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian and who is left to defend a path to what? <<<<<all religions r nothing more than cults of one kind or another... >>>>>> Every religion necessarily matches the spiritual maturity of the one practicing and they all have their place. <<<<<i like nisargadatta because he doesn't really get into religion that much... i mean, he practiced various traditions that he was raised up in, but, he did not necessarily prescribe that for anybody else... he simply accepted who he was & it wasn't an issue for him... (he belonged to the navnath sampradaya or the nine masters lineage)>>> Yes, he clearly did not have the *need* of a crutch that religion often is. People following some religions do so because they feel a lack in themselves or their life and religion is a way of becoming more or increasing how people *think about themselves*, it will not necessarily bring one closer to knowing. <<....getting back to the no-self issue... if there is no self, then what is this self that allegedly does not exist???>> Who proclaims the existence or the non-existence of A self, is that itself the self 'you' are? When the Buddhists say that there is no self nature they are talking about phenomenon, no phenomenon has any self nature. The *personal* self as an ego etc is an illusion it is not the true self nature. Phenomenon are completely devoid of self nature. It is a statement that leads to the investigation of this. If no phenomenon has any self nature and I am phenomenon then what am I? Kind Regards, Scott. > Hi again, > > > yeah... i am... me... you... absolutely... relative to whatever... > in > > between everything & nothing... > > > > it's all just a manner of speaking... that is all... > > > Yes, it is. > But it also does help when discussing these things that everyone > agree on what is being spoken about and that words are not used > too 'loosely' or words that have different meanings are not > substituted one for the other. > > > > > > > you appear to be of the no-self school, also... there r quite a few > > on this forum... > > > I am 'against' the personalization and clinging of and to paths and > practices etc whether it be Zen Buddhism, Theravada, Western > esotericism, Paganism or New Age material. > > I think the defence and clinging to a path that occurrs as a form of > spiritual materialism is one of the biggest 'obstacles' to > realization. > > I know this was not what you meant in the case of your question but I > wanted to make a point of it whilst here. > > The Buddhist no-self idea is meant to be a worm on a hook that leads > to investigation of what this really means, i.e what does the non- > existence of self in phenomenon really mean? > > > > > > what we r is beyond words, beyond worlds... that's the > difficulty... > > it is hard to realize because it can't be realized... it is > realized > > when 1 realizes it can't be realized... it's all very tricky > stuff... > > > > yes, indeed > > > Yes, indeed > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Hi again Anders, > > We are also not talking about denying the movie AS a participant in > > it. > > *You* are a part of that movie. > > > > And, AS a ME out of *necessity* of *interaction* you participate > > along with every other reflected self. > Yes, that is correct, but it is like Tony Parsons says: " Nothing is > communicating with nothing " .>>>>> No. Mind commmunicates to mind. Saying nothing is *communicating* with nothing is silly. It doesn't matter what Tony Parsons, Nisagardatta, Ramana Maharshi or the pizza delivery man says, they are ALL talking only and ever as a ME. >There is no me communicating at all. The > communication *and* the idea of a " me " as a communicator are created > as a part of the same package.>>>> There IS communication between mind, but it is part of 'one package', yes. >This is a way of looking at everything > as Oneness. It can be difficult to understand Oneness when one > thinks: " I communicate " , but it is only a matter of swithing > to " Communication happens " . As an intellectual understanding this > will not penetrate one's being. One must _feel_ communication > happening as one wholeness. Then the reality of a " me " being a > communicatior begins to be questioned>>>>>>>>> The ME is the only thing that *can* and *does* communicate. You cannot 'get rid of it' nor do you have to. > > <<<<<<> Similarly, we cannot deny the existence of the world, > > however, and > > > here I go again for the umpteenth time: the world is only the > > past.>>>>>> > > > > > > The denying of the reality of the world and the claiming of the > > reality of the world is only *possible* for a reflected self, a ME. > Awareness aware of itself needs no " ME " as an " entity " >>>>>> Yes. <>>>>>>>>The " I > observe " -idea is just a thought, and awareness observes that thought, > but awareness does not *need* an " I " or a " ME " thought.>>>>> Yes! >>>>>>Such thought > would only be a speck of dust on the clear wind shield of awareness. > The " ME " is only a speck of dust. Wipe it off! :-)>>>>>> Who *can or would* wipe it off and where or what is the windscreen? These are bricks of conceptuality. Thinking can only take a ME so far. > > Nothing else can *say it* and any claim you make is also part of > what > > is. > > > > The 'thing' that is denying the existence is denying that it exists > > also which is proof that it does. > > > > Whether you say I/the world don't exist or I/the world do exist, > both > > show a distinguisher or discrimination and that is a me or > reflected > > self, it makes no difference either way, because a me must be > present. >>>>>>There must be awareness and that which awareness is aware of. No " ME " > is needed. The " ME " is just a thought, a thought is like a flower or > a cloud: something observed.>>>>>>>>> No. A ME is *needed*, a ME is not in any way 'only a thought', a ME allows and is a necessary mind/body apparatus for interaction. You *need* a me, it is just that a ME is not what 'you' really ARE. >>>>>>>>Who needs to stare at a " ME " thought all > the time? Why not look at the flower and the cloud unclouded by > a " ME " , so to speak? :-) >>>>>>> ME is not a thought that is stared at. >>>>>>>>The " ME " is just an add-on, a projection that often inludes a created > past and future. And one must see that this " ME " is what creates > suffering even though it contains many desires that blinds you from > the truth.>>>>>>> ME is nothing of the sort! Desires and attachment cause suffering yes, and desire and attachment occurr with a ME and are a part of what makes a ME what it is. > > The world is not in the past, it is always NOW. > > Time *does not* change anything, phenomenon and the behaviour of > > whole mind creates time ( in space ). > > Yes, the past is now, but the past is the observed and awareness is > the observer. They are not two, but the observed changes and is in > that sense not the solid foundation for reality. Awareness is the > solid foundation for reality and is the Source from which past and > future is being created in the single Now. The changes are the reality itself also, these are not two. > > <<<<<> Here is another two: 2, but it is not actually the _real_ > > number two - > > > it is just a representation made out of pixels.>>>> > > > > > > The 'real' number 2 is only a representation, the same mind you as > > anything, 'coffee cup' for instance, where is THE real coffee cup. >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. This is what I think in Buddhism is called emptiness. Things > in themseves have no independent existence>>>>>>>> When they speak of emptiness they are talking about the 'fundamental nature of the mind', it is *one* way of exploring this. Things have no independent existence yes, this is a Buddhist doctrine. > > >>>>>> I guess that there is only One Contributor. You are living > > under the > > > spell of the ego my friend. Snap out of it! ;-)>>>> > > > > > > You cannot apply the law of excluded middle logic to spiritual or > > reality concerns > <<<<> That sounded like advanced wisdom. Could perhaps be true. ;-) >>>>>> Just means you cannot say YES or NO exclusively, that both are sometimes simultaneously true with no contradiction. > > There is *both* the actions of individual personal selves which > > *include* what they are; ( e.g their personal self as a me and ego ) > > and wholeness as a bound up whole, all these reflected selves make > > the whole unity what it is *moment by moment*. Both of these occurr > > at the *same 'time'*, these two are one. > > > > Beware the half truth. > > Watch your ego trying to hold on to both itself and something bigger > at the same time. The ego is the only thing that holds assumptions, but the above is not a *task to be done*. If you are talking about the nature of reality, God etc, you cannot simply focus on a one-sided viewpoint because there are two halves of the one whole, both of which makes it what it is. > > > > Again, Chuang Tzu, " The **BEING** of SEPARATE beings is non- > separate > > BEING " > > > > The world is not a movie or TV screen. > <<<<<<<> The world could very well be a 3D " movie " , Maya, or a " virtual > reality " being played by consciousness>>>>>>> Whatever you are saying about the world is your projection of it onto it. All philosophy is a subjectification of the whole BY a ME. What is this ME that wants to know? >Consciousness itself has no > size, substance or form. The world is I believe just a " computer > simulation " a la The Matrix created by this consciousness.>>>>>> Everything is mind / consciousness. Mind creates. >>>>>>Nothing in > the world has any existence of its own.>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>Everything is in reality a no- > thing, a temporary appearance in consciousness>>>>>>> A temporary appearance yes, but not IN consciousness. >>>>>>>> Think about this: how big is the material universe? This cannot be > answered in an absolute sense, only in a relational sense, such as > the size of your own body in _relation_ to the material universe. > Seen as a totality it is impossible to say that the universe has a > certain size. How can something that has no absolute size be said to > be real?>>>>>>>>> How big is mind? >>>>>Consciousness can be absolute without having any absolute > size.>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. > If you entered a virual reality world created by a computer and then > walked around in it, you may see buildings in it that were 20 meters > high. But these building would not be 20 meters high. They would only > be a part of a computer program. The computer program is not 20 > meters high. The computer program has no physical size. There is only this ( one ) and 'you' and 'me' are 'in' 'IT'. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2004 > > >Hi again Anders, > > > > > We are also not talking about denying the movie AS a participant >in > > > it. > > > *You* are a part of that movie. > > > > > > And, AS a ME out of *necessity* of *interaction* you participate > > > along with every other reflected self. > > > > Yes, that is correct, but it is like Tony Parsons says: " Nothing is > > communicating with nothing " .>>>>> > > >No. >Mind commmunicates to mind. >Saying nothing is *communicating* with nothing is silly. > >It doesn't matter what Tony Parsons, Nisagardatta, Ramana Maharshi or >the pizza delivery man says, they are ALL talking only and ever as a >ME. Like LaoTzu says... " The Tao that can be spoken of, is not the Tao " ....but we all try. Even Lao Tzu went on to write 81 more verses :-) RL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > > > We are also not talking about denying the movie AS a participant > in > > > it. > > > *You* are a part of that movie. > > > > > > And, AS a ME out of *necessity* of *interaction* you participate > > > along with every other reflected self. > > > > Yes, that is correct, but it is like Tony Parsons says: " Nothing is > > communicating with nothing " .>>>>> > > > No. > Mind commmunicates to mind. > Saying nothing is *communicating* with nothing is silly. This is only silly to the intellect. But what is really silly is that the intellect believes itself to be a communicator. Communication happens as a functioning of Totality, _inluding_ the manifestation of seemingly separate intellects _and_ together with the idea that it is the intellect itself that is the one doing the communication. It is all a manifestation of One expression evolving. Think of reality as ONE automatic unfolding. There is no communication going on in this ONE unit unfolding. So it is not even nothing communicating with nothing. There is no communication going on between separate intellects. There is the appearance of communication being done by individual persons, but I hope you see what I am getting at here. > > It doesn't matter what Tony Parsons, Nisagardatta, Ramana Maharshi or > the pizza delivery man says, they are ALL talking only and ever as a > ME. But that ME is a functuioning of Totality; the ME arises automatically in the unfolding total unit we call existence. > > > > > >There is no me communicating at all. The > > communication *and* the idea of a " me " as a communicator are > created > > as a part of the same package.>>>> > > > There IS communication between mind, but it is part of 'one package', > yes. No, there is no communication going on between minds. It is the illusion of a separate " me " that makes you think that " you " are communicating. > > > > >This is a way of looking at everything > > as Oneness. It can be difficult to understand Oneness when one > > thinks: " I communicate " , but it is only a matter of swithing > > to " Communication happens " . As an intellectual understanding this > > will not penetrate one's being. One must _feel_ communication > > happening as one wholeness. Then the reality of a " me " being a > > communicatior begins to be questioned>>>>>>>>> > > > The ME is the only thing that *can* and *does* communicate. > You cannot 'get rid of it' nor do you have to. No the ME is just an _appearance_ in your awareness. The ME is just an idea of being a comminicator. Sure, communication seemingly happens between this and that, between you and other people, but this is only Oneness is motion, and it is not even motion. Nothing ever moves except awareness' point of observation, and this point is literary nothing in itself. Absolute existence does not change. > > > > > <<<<<<> Similarly, we cannot deny the existence of the world, > > > however, and > > > > here I go again for the umpteenth time: the world is only the > > > past.>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > The denying of the reality of the world and the claiming of the > > > reality of the world is only *possible* for a reflected self, a > ME. > > > Awareness aware of itself needs no " ME " as an " entity " >>>>>> > > > Yes. > > > <>>>>>>>>The " I > > observe " -idea is just a thought, and awareness observes that > thought, > > but awareness does not *need* an " I " or a " ME " thought.>>>>> > > > Yes! > > > >>>>>>Such thought > > would only be a speck of dust on the clear wind shield of > awareness. > > The " ME " is only a speck of dust. Wipe it off! :-)>>>>>> > > > Who *can or would* wipe it off and where or what is the windscreen? > These are bricks of conceptuality. Thinking can only take a ME so far. When you have a speck of dust on the windscreen you just wipe it off, you don't to know how, you just do it, if you like to. :-) > > > > > > Nothing else can *say it* and any claim you make is also part of > > what > > > is. > > > > > > The 'thing' that is denying the existence is denying that it > exists > > > also which is proof that it does. > > > > > > Whether you say I/the world don't exist or I/the world do exist, > > both > > > show a distinguisher or discrimination and that is a me or > > reflected > > > self, it makes no difference either way, because a me must be > > present. > > > >>>>>>There must be awareness and that which awareness is aware of. > No " ME " > > is needed. The " ME " is just a thought, a thought is like a flower > or > > a cloud: something observed.>>>>>>>>> > > > No. > > A ME is *needed*, a ME is not in any way 'only a thought', a ME > allows and is a necessary mind/body apparatus for interaction. > You *need* a me, it is just that a ME is not what 'you' really ARE. Yes, ME as impersonal awareness must be there as an observer, or else there would be no experience. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>Who needs to stare at a " ME " thought all > > the time? Why not look at the flower and the cloud unclouded by > > a " ME " , so to speak? :-) >>>>>>> > > > ME is not a thought that is stared at. If you mean by ME impersonal awareness, then ok, then we are talking about the subject ME. > > > > >>>>>>>>The " ME " is just an add-on, a projection that often inludes a > created > > past and future. And one must see that this " ME " is what creates > > suffering even though it contains many desires that blinds you from > > the truth.>>>>>>> > > > ME is nothing of the sort! > Desires and attachment cause suffering yes, and desire and attachment > occurr with a ME and are a part of what makes a ME what it is. You are nothing you can be aware of as changing. You as you really are, are pure changeless awareness. > > > > > > The world is not in the past, it is always NOW. > > > Time *does not* change anything, phenomenon and the behaviour of > > > whole mind creates time ( in space ). > > > > Yes, the past is now, but the past is the observed and awareness is > > the observer. They are not two, but the observed changes and is in > > that sense not the solid foundation for reality. Awareness is the > > solid foundation for reality and is the Source from which past and > > future is being created in the single Now. > > > The changes are the reality itself also, these are not two. No. Nothing changes exept a moving observation point in awareness. The observation point in itself is nothing, so there is really no " stuff " that changes. > > > > > > <<<<<> Here is another two: 2, but it is not actually the _real_ > > > number two - > > > > it is just a representation made out of pixels.>>>> > > > > > > > > > The 'real' number 2 is only a representation, the same mind you > as > > > anything, 'coffee cup' for instance, where is THE real coffee cup. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. This is what I think in Buddhism is called > emptiness. Things > > in themseves have no independent existence>>>>>>>> > > > > When they speak of emptiness they are talking about the 'fundamental > nature of the mind', it is *one* way of exploring this. > > Things have no independent existence yes, this is a Buddhist doctrine. > > > > > > > >>>>>> I guess that there is only One Contributor. You are living > > > under the > > > > spell of the ego my friend. Snap out of it! ;-)>>>> > > > > > > > > > You cannot apply the law of excluded middle logic to spiritual or > > > reality concerns > > > <<<<> That sounded like advanced wisdom. Could perhaps be true. ;-) > >>>>>> > > > > Just means you cannot say YES or NO exclusively, that both are > sometimes simultaneously true with no contradiction. Yes, like in nothing moves, and what moves is a point in the timeless. > > > > > There is *both* the actions of individual personal selves which > > > *include* what they are; ( e.g their personal self as a me and > ego ) > > > and wholeness as a bound up whole, all these reflected selves > make > > > the whole unity what it is *moment by moment*. Both of these > occurr > > > at the *same 'time'*, these two are one. > > > > > > Beware the half truth. > > > > Watch your ego trying to hold on to both itself and something > bigger > > at the same time. > > > The ego is the only thing that holds assumptions, but the above is > not a *task to be done*. > > If you are talking about the nature of reality, God etc, you cannot > simply focus on a one-sided viewpoint because there are two halves of > the one whole, both of which makes it what it is. We have two halves in the form of awareness that does not move, and the other half as that which in relation to awareness moves. > > > > > > > > > > Again, Chuang Tzu, " The **BEING** of SEPARATE beings is non- > > separate > > > BEING " > > > > > > The world is not a movie or TV screen. > > > <<<<<<<> The world could very well be a 3D " movie " , Maya, or > a " virtual > > reality " being played by consciousness>>>>>>> > > > Whatever you are saying about the world is your projection of it onto > it. > All philosophy is a subjectification of the whole BY a ME. > > What is this ME that wants to know? Nothing. :-) > > > >Consciousness itself has no > > size, substance or form. The world is I believe just a " computer > > simulation " a la The Matrix created by this consciousness.>>>>>> > > > Everything is mind / consciousness. Mind creates. > > > > >>>>>>Nothing in > > the world has any existence of its own.>>>>>>>> > > > Yes. > > > >>>>>>>>Everything is in reality a no- > > thing, a temporary appearance in consciousness>>>>>>> > > > A temporary appearance yes, but not IN consciousness. > > > > >>>>>>>> Think about this: how big is the material universe? This > cannot be > > answered in an absolute sense, only in a relational sense, such as > > the size of your own body in _relation_ to the material universe. > > Seen as a totality it is impossible to say that the universe has a > > certain size. How can something that has no absolute size be said > to > > be real?>>>>>>>>> > > > How big is mind? The mind is sizeless. > > > >>>>>Consciousness can be absolute without having any absolute > > size.>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Yes. > > > > > If you entered a virual reality world created by a computer and > then > > walked around in it, you may see buildings in it that were 20 > meters > > high. But these building would not be 20 meters high. They would > only > > be a part of a computer program. The computer program is not 20 > > meters high. The computer program has no physical size. > > > There is only this ( one ) and 'you' and 'me' are 'in' 'IT'. We can also say that we pure experience. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Hi, > >Mind commmunicates to mind. > >Saying nothing is *communicating* with nothing is silly. > > > >It doesn't matter what Tony Parsons, Nisagardatta, Ramana Maharshi or > >the pizza delivery man says, they are ALL talking only and ever as a > >ME. >>>>>>>> Like LaoTzu says... " The Tao that can be spoken of, is not the Tao " ....but > we all try. Even Lao Tzu went on to write 81 more verses :-)>>>>>>> Nothing wrong in talking about it, nothing wrong in not talking about it Maybe the middle option is best? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Hi Anders, > > No. > > Mind commmunicates to mind. > > Saying nothing is *communicating* with nothing is silly. >>>This is only silly to the intellect.>> Yes, silly to a ME. The ME which includes the intellect is what allows communication to happen. Saying nothing is *communicating* ( with nothing ) is silly, a ME is communicating with a ME. <<<<<<<<But what is really silly is that > the intellect believes itself to be a communicator.>>>>> The ME ( with the intellect ) is *what IS* communicating. >>>>>>>>>>>Communication > happens as a functioning of Totality, _inluding_ the manifestation of > seemingly separate intellects _and_ together with the idea that it is > the intellect itself that is the one doing the communication.>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the whole is *functioning* and that is a 'part of' this functioning. >>>>>>>It is > all a manifestation of One expression evolving. Think of reality as > ONE automatic unfolding. There is no communication going on in this > ONE unit unfolding>>>>> There IS communication happening and this amongst other things is what makes THIS one what it is. It is a part of the functioning you mentioned earlier. >>>>>So it is not even nothing communicating with > nothing. There is no communication going on between separate > intellects>>>>>> There is, ME mind / bodies are what allow this type of interaction. >>>>>There is the appearance of communication being done by > individual persons, but I hope you see what I am getting at here.>>>>>> Again, beware the half truth and again, you cannot apply law of excluded middle logic to reality concerns. Saying nothing is communicating with nothing is incorrect. > > It doesn't matter what Tony Parsons, Nisagardatta, Ramana Maharshi > or > > the pizza delivery man says, they are ALL talking only and ever as > a > > ME. > > But that ME is a functuioning of Totality; the ME arises > automatically in the unfolding total unit we call existence. Yes, it is a part of the *functioning* of the whole. It arises 'automatically' like everyTHING and never a thing in itself. > > There IS communication between mind, but it is part of 'one > package', > > yes. > > No, there is no communication going on between minds. It is the > illusion of a separate " me " that makes you think that " you " are > communicating>>> The thing that separates YOU from ME is a ME, and that ME is what is communicating with that YOU. > > The ME is the only thing that *can* and *does* communicate. > > You cannot 'get rid of it' nor do you have to. > <<<<<> No the ME is just an _appearance_ in your awareness. The ME is just > an idea of being a comminicator.>>>>>>> The ME *is* the communicatOR. <<<<<Sure, communication seemingly > happens between this and that, between you and other people, but this > is only Oneness is motion, and it is not even motion>>>>>> Yes, it is the unity functioning. >>>>>Nothing ever > moves except awareness' point of observation, and this point is > literary nothing in itself. Absolute existence does not change.>>>>> Where is the observation point? > > Who *can or would* wipe it off and where or what is the windscreen? > > These are bricks of conceptuality. Thinking can only take a ME so > far. >>>>>> When you have a speck of dust on the windscreen you just wipe it off, > you don't to know how, you just do it, if you like to. :-)>>>>>> I think this is the end of the line for the above metaphor don't you It is easy to compare the wiping of dust off a windscreen to 'getting rid of a ME' but how does it help ( *even* if that was the intention and the task was as easy as the metaphor? ) > > No. > > > > A ME is *needed*, a ME is not in any way 'only a thought', a ME > > allows and is a necessary mind/body apparatus for interaction. > > You *need* a me, it is just that a ME is not what 'you' really ARE. >>>>>Yes, ME as impersonal awareness must be there as an observer, or else > there would be no experience.>>>>>> No, a ME is not impersonal awareness, me is the mind/body ego that assumes itself to be the self. > > >>>>>>>>Who needs to stare at a " ME " thought all > > > the time? Why not look at the flower and the cloud unclouded by > > > a " ME " , so to speak? :-) >>>>>>> > > > > > > ME is not a thought that is stared at. > > If you mean by ME impersonal awareness, then ok, then we are talking > about the subject ME. No, again, ME is not impersonal awareness. > > ME is nothing of the sort! > > Desires and attachment cause suffering yes, and desire and > attachment > > occurr with a ME and are a part of what makes a ME what it is. > > You are nothing you can be aware of as changing. You as you really > are, are pure changeless awareness. 'You' cannot tell 'me' what I AM. > > The changes are the reality itself also, these are not two. > > No. Nothing changes exept a moving observation point in awareness. > The observation point in itself is nothing, so there is really > no " stuff " that changes>>>>> Change is the world, the certain constant, it makes the way what the way is now. Awareness does not move. Where is the looker? > > > > Just means you cannot say YES or NO exclusively, that both are > > sometimes simultaneously true with no contradiction. > > Yes, like in nothing moves, and what moves is a point in the timeless>>>>> What point? > > Whatever you are saying about the world is your projection of it > onto > > it. > > All philosophy is a subjectification of the whole BY a ME. > > > > What is this ME that wants to know? > > Nothing. :-)>>>>> *Who* declares the above? > > There is only this ( one ) and 'you' and 'me' are 'in' 'IT'. > > We can also say that we pure experience. We, 'You' and 'Me' can say many things , but the way that can be spoken...... Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > > > > No. > > > Mind commmunicates to mind. > > > Saying nothing is *communicating* with nothing is silly. > > > >>>This is only silly to the intellect.>> > > > Yes, silly to a ME. > > The ME which includes the intellect is what allows communication to > happen. > > Saying nothing is *communicating* ( with nothing ) is silly, a ME is > communicating with a ME. > > > > <<<<<<<<But what is really silly is that > > the intellect believes itself to be a communicator.>>>>> > > > The ME ( with the intellect ) is *what IS* communicating. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Communication > > happens as a functioning of Totality, _inluding_ the manifestation > of > > seemingly separate intellects _and_ together with the idea that it > is > > the intellect itself that is the one doing the > communication.>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Yes, the whole is *functioning* and that is a 'part of' this > functioning. > > > >>>>>>>It is > > all a manifestation of One expression evolving. Think of reality as > > ONE automatic unfolding. There is no communication going on in this > > ONE unit unfolding>>>>> > > > There IS communication happening and this amongst other things is > what makes THIS one what it is. > It is a part of the functioning you mentioned earlier. > > > >>>>>So it is not even nothing communicating with > > nothing. There is no communication going on between separate > > intellects>>>>>> > > > There is, ME mind / bodies are what allow this type of interaction. > > > >>>>>There is the appearance of communication being done by > > individual persons, but I hope you see what I am getting at > here.>>>>>> > > > Again, beware the half truth and again, you cannot apply law of > excluded middle logic to reality concerns. > > Saying nothing is communicating with nothing is incorrect. > > > > > > > It doesn't matter what Tony Parsons, Nisagardatta, Ramana > Maharshi > > or > > > the pizza delivery man says, they are ALL talking only and ever > as > > a > > > ME. > > > > But that ME is a functuioning of Totality; the ME arises > > automatically in the unfolding total unit we call existence. > > > Yes, it is a part of the *functioning* of the whole. > It arises 'automatically' like everyTHING and never a thing in itself. > > > > > > There IS communication between mind, but it is part of 'one > > package', > > > yes. > > > > No, there is no communication going on between minds. It is the > > illusion of a separate " me " that makes you think that " you " are > > communicating>>> > > > The thing that separates YOU from ME is a ME, and that ME is what is > communicating with that YOU. > > > > > > The ME is the only thing that *can* and *does* communicate. > > > You cannot 'get rid of it' nor do you have to. > > > <<<<<> No the ME is just an _appearance_ in your awareness. > The ME is just > > an idea of being a comminicator.>>>>>>> > > > The ME *is* the communicatOR. > > > > > <<<<<Sure, communication seemingly > > happens between this and that, between you and other people, but > this > > is only Oneness is motion, and it is not even motion>>>>>> > > > Yes, it is the unity functioning. > > > >>>>>Nothing ever > > moves except awareness' point of observation, and this point is > > literary nothing in itself. Absolute existence does not change.>>>>> > > > Where is the observation point? Hehe. Look around you, you _are_ the observation point. :-) > > > > > > Who *can or would* wipe it off and where or what is the > windscreen? > > > These are bricks of conceptuality. Thinking can only take a ME so > > far. > > >>>>>> When you have a speck of dust on the windscreen you just wipe > it off, > > you don't to know how, you just do it, if you like to. :-)>>>>>> > > > > I think this is the end of the line for the above metaphor don't > you > > It is easy to compare the wiping of dust off a windscreen to 'getting > rid of a ME' but how does it help ( *even* if that was the intention > and the task was as easy as the metaphor? ) If you mean ME being Totality, then there is no way of getting rid of the ME, but when we talk about the idea of a me being a separate doer in this world, then this illusion can be obliterated i believe. > > > > > > No. > > > > > > A ME is *needed*, a ME is not in any way 'only a thought', a ME > > > allows and is a necessary mind/body apparatus for interaction. > > > You *need* a me, it is just that a ME is not what 'you' really > ARE. > > > >>>>>Yes, ME as impersonal awareness must be there as an observer, or > else > > there would be no experience.>>>>>> > > > > No, a ME is not impersonal awareness, me is the mind/body ego that > assumes itself to be the self. Then you have separated the ME from awareness. Without awareness, no awareness. :-) > > > > > >>>>>>>>Who needs to stare at a " ME " thought all > > > > the time? Why not look at the flower and the cloud unclouded by > > > > a " ME " , so to speak? :-) >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > ME is not a thought that is stared at. > > > > If you mean by ME impersonal awareness, then ok, then we are > talking > > about the subject ME. > > > No, again, ME is not impersonal awareness. Then the ME as you define it is form. But you need something to be aware of form in time. > > > > > > ME is nothing of the sort! > > > Desires and attachment cause suffering yes, and desire and > > attachment > > > occurr with a ME and are a part of what makes a ME what it is. > > > > You are nothing you can be aware of as changing. You as you really > > are, are pure changeless awareness. > > > 'You' cannot tell 'me' what I AM. It is Totality in work here. Nothing is being communicated. There is no communication going on. Think of a movie again. Characters in the movie seem to communicate with each other, but the communication is already created in the form of frames in a film. The _appearance_ of communication is going on in this world, but there is no separate mind communicating with another separate mind. Reality unfolds as a _single_ unit. A Oneness. And within this Oneness there is the appearance of separate beings communicating with each other. There is no individual doer. There is no individual communicator. Oneness can only communicate with itself as a form of illusion, and that is what is happening right now. We have pride that says; " I communicate " , but that pride is also a part of the single automatic unfolding of the world. > > > > > > The changes are the reality itself also, these are not two. > > > > No. Nothing changes exept a moving observation point in awareness. > > The observation point in itself is nothing, so there is really > > no " stuff " that changes>>>>> > > > Change is the world, the certain constant, it makes the way what the > way is now. > > Awareness does not move. > > Where is the looker? Impersonal awareness is the looker, but this is not a " thing " , it is the One Subject. > > > > > > > > > Just means you cannot say YES or NO exclusively, that both are > > > sometimes simultaneously true with no contradiction. > > > > Yes, like in nothing moves, and what moves is a point in the > timeless>>>>> > > > What point? Nothing moves. Change does not happen in reality. Think of reality as an infinite DVD record. The DVD itself does not move, it is timeless. Awareness observes a single point in this DVD creating your Now. This observation is neither creation nor destruction. Nothing moves. As an _automatic_ result the observation of one point in this DVD results in the observation of another point creating the appearance of time. Again, nothing changes, the result of one point leading to another point of observation timelessly *is*. Everyone is _completely_ powerless, including George W Bush. :-) > > > > > > > Whatever you are saying about the world is your projection of it > > onto > > > it. > > > All philosophy is a subjectification of the whole BY a ME. > > > > > > What is this ME that wants to know? > > > > Nothing. :-)>>>>> > > > *Who* declares the above? A timeless point in absolute existence. > > > > > > > There is only this ( one ) and 'you' and 'me' are 'in' 'IT'. > > > > We can also say that we pure experience. > > > We, 'You' and 'Me' can say many things , but the way that can be > spoken...... Yes, but no one is doing anything. Not even time is doing anything. Not even the Universe is doing anything. Welcome to the Timeless Matrix. :-) (Although I must admit that I cannot prove my theories) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 2004 i was sitting here yesterday (or so it seemed) & i realized (without even trying) that everything has it's being in silence... the " self " is silence... everything exists by virtue of silence... silence is the backdrop by which all things become differentiated... ....the universe swims in silence... all things at their core are possessed of silence... thought, activity of any kind, everything that happens, great or small, occurs in & thru silence... silence is the be all & end all... these words u r reading r seen (read) only by virtue of the blankness, the emptiness, the visual silence of the computer screen... which is none other than a reflection of the computer screen of your mind (imagination)... i read somewhere that nisargadatta told seekers to look in between the thoughts... thoughts come & go... they r impermanent, insecure... but the silence in which thought presents itself remains forever... u r THAT yours danananda Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > > Who proclaims the existence or the non-existence of A self, is that itself the self 'you' are? > > When the Buddhists say that there is no self nature they are talking about phenomenon, no phenomenon has any self nature. > > The *personal* self as an ego etc is an illusion it is not the true self nature. > > Phenomenon are completely devoid of self nature. > > It is a statement that leads to the investigation of this. > > If no phenomenon has any self nature and I am phenomenon then what am I? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 2004 Hi Anders, > > It is easy to compare the wiping of dust off a windscreen > to 'getting > > rid of a ME' but how does it help ( *even* if that was the > intention > > and the task was as easy as the metaphor? ) >>>>>>> If you mean ME being Totality, then there is no way of getting rid of > the ME, but when we talk about the idea of a me being a separate doer > in this world, then this illusion can be obliterated i believe>>>>> The ME is your idea of what you believe you are. That is, a mind / body ego unit, personal self. > > No, a ME is not impersonal awareness, me is the mind/body ego that > > assumes itself to be the self. > > Then you have separated the ME from awareness. Without awareness, no > awareness. :-) Yes, ME is not awareness. > > No, again, ME is not impersonal awareness. > > Then the ME as you define it is form. But you need something to be > aware of form in time. Yes, including thoughts and emotions as form. The mind / body ego is *known* it is not the knowER. > > 'You' cannot tell 'me' what I AM. > > It is Totality in work here. Totality doesn't work , but yes, totality is now now now. <<Nothing is being communicated.>> Many things are being communicated. >There is > no communication going on.>> Of course there is; e.g Hello, what music do you like? >Think of a movie again. Characters in the > movie seem to communicate with each other, but the communication is > already created in the form of frames in a film.>>>>>> If the characters in the movie didn't communicate there would be no movie. >>>>>>The _appearance_ of > communication is going on in this world, but there is no separate > mind communicating with another separate mind.>>>>> There is a ME communicating with another ME. >>>>>Reality unfolds as a > _single_ unit>> Yes, and it also doesn't do that either. And again beware of half truths and again, you cannot use law of excluded middle logic for reality concerns. >>>>>A Oneness. And within this Oneness there is the > appearance of separate beings communicating with each other>>>> No, there IS a ME communicating with a ME and it is a ME that says so and a ME that denies it. Both are communicating *AS* MEs. >>>>>There is > no individual doer. There is no individual communicator. Oneness can > only communicate with itself as a form of illusion, and that is what > is happening right now>>>>>> ''Oneness'' is oneness and *cannot and does not* communicate with anything. And again beware the half truth and again, you cannot use law of excluded middle logic for reality concerns. > > We have pride that says; " I communicate " , but that pride is also a > part of the single automatic unfolding of the world. EveryTHING is a part of the whole, there is nothing outside of 'mind'. > > Change is the world, the certain constant, it makes the way what > the > > way is now. > > > > Awareness does not move. > > > > Where is the looker? > > Impersonal awareness is the looker, but this is not a " thing " , it is > the One Subject. What looker? What subject? > > > > Just means you cannot say YES or NO exclusively, that both are > > > > sometimes simultaneously true with no contradiction. > > > > > > Yes, like in nothing moves, and what moves is a point in the > > timeless>>>>> > > > > > > What point? > >>>> Nothing moves. Change does not happen in reality>>>>> Change is a part of reality, like heat is a part of fire. >Think of reality as > an infinite DVD record. The DVD itself does not move, it is timeless. > Awareness observes a single point in this DVD creating your Now.>>> You can't *think* of reality as anything. >This > observation is neither creation nor destruction. Nothing moves. As an > _automatic_ result the observation of one point in this DVD results > in the observation of another point creating the appearance of time > Again, nothing changes, the result of one point leading to another > point of observation timelessly *is*. > > Everyone is _completely_ powerless, including George W Bush. :-)>>> If only that were true! > > *Who* declares the above? > > A timeless point in absolute existence. How can a timeless point in absolute existence make a claim? *Who* declares the above? > > We, 'You' and 'Me' can say many things , but the way that can be > > spoken...... > >>>>> Yes, but no one is doing anything>>>>> >>>Not even time is doing anything. >>>> Time has never and will never do anything because time *cannot DO* anything. It's not real, of itself. >>> Not even the Universe is doing anything>>>> Yes, the universe or total IS. >>>> Welcome to the Timeless Matrix. :-)>>>>> I'm enjoying the trip Luke Skywalker Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Hi, > i was sitting here yesterday (or so it seemed) & i realized (without > even trying) that everything has it's being in silence...>>> The one that realized this *is itself* a noise, as is the realizing of this! the " self " > is silence... everything exists by virtue of silence... silence is > the backdrop by which all things become differentiated... ''''''''''''''''the " self " is silence''''''''''''''''''' Rubbish No it's not!! It's not a dogs tooth either. Next time you need more quotation marks let me know and I will email them to you >>>>i read somewhere that nisargadatta told seekers to look in between > the thoughts... thoughts come & go... they r impermanent,>>>>> All things, all objects, all thingness are of the same essential fluxing transient nature as thoughts that occurr. insecure... > but the silence in which thought presents itself remains forever... u > r THAT 'That which is outside of time', is untouched by time and has nothing to do with time or ANY *notions* of time, the words 'eternity', 'timeless', 'forever' are all meaningless in that they appear 'on the screen' within time, as all concepts and thoughts do, just concepts again, bricks. Kind Regards, Scott. > Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> > wrote: > > > > > > Who proclaims the existence or the non-existence of A self, is that > itself the self 'you' are? > > > > When the Buddhists say that there is no self nature they are > talking about phenomenon, no phenomenon has any self nature. > > > > The *personal* self as an ego etc is an illusion it is not the true > self nature. > > > > Phenomenon are completely devoid of self nature. > > > > It is a statement that leads to the investigation of this. > > > > If no phenomenon has any self nature and I am phenomenon then what > am I? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > > > It is easy to compare the wiping of dust off a windscreen > > to 'getting > > > rid of a ME' but how does it help ( *even* if that was the > > intention > > > and the task was as easy as the metaphor? ) > > >>>>>>> If you mean ME being Totality, then there is no way of > getting rid of > > the ME, but when we talk about the idea of a me being a separate > doer > > in this world, then this illusion can be obliterated i believe>>>>> > > > The ME is your idea of what you believe you are. > That is, a mind / body ego unit, personal self. > > > > > No, a ME is not impersonal awareness, me is the mind/body ego > that > > > assumes itself to be the self. > > > > Then you have separated the ME from awareness. Without awareness, > no > > awareness. :-) > > > > Yes, ME is not awareness. > > > > > > > No, again, ME is not impersonal awareness. > > > > Then the ME as you define it is form. But you need something to be > > aware of form in time. > > > Yes, including thoughts and emotions as form. > > The mind / body ego is *known* it is not the knowER. > > > > > > > 'You' cannot tell 'me' what I AM. > > > > It is Totality in work here. > > > Totality doesn't work , but yes, totality is now now now. > > > <<Nothing is being communicated.>> > > > Many things are being communicated. > > > >There is > > no communication going on.>> > > > Of course there is; > > e.g Hello, what music do you like? > > > >Think of a movie again. Characters in the > > movie seem to communicate with each other, but the communication is > > already created in the form of frames in a film.>>>>>> > > > If the characters in the movie didn't communicate there would be no > movie. > > > >>>>>>The _appearance_ of > > communication is going on in this world, but there is no separate > > mind communicating with another separate mind.>>>>> > > > There is a ME communicating with another ME. > > > >>>>>Reality unfolds as a > > _single_ unit>> > > > Yes, and it also doesn't do that either. > > And again beware of half truths and again, you cannot use law of > excluded middle logic for reality concerns. > > > > >>>>>A Oneness. And within this Oneness there is the > > appearance of separate beings communicating with each other>>>> > > > > No, there IS a ME communicating with a ME and it is a ME that says so > and a ME that denies it. Both are communicating *AS* MEs. > > > >>>>>There is > > no individual doer. There is no individual communicator. Oneness > can > > only communicate with itself as a form of illusion, and that is > what > > is happening right now>>>>>> > > > ''Oneness'' is oneness and *cannot and does not* communicate with > anything. > > And again beware the half truth and again, you cannot use law of > excluded middle logic for reality concerns. > > > > > > We have pride that says; " I communicate " , but that pride is also a > > part of the single automatic unfolding of the world. > > > > EveryTHING is a part of the whole, there is nothing outside of 'mind'. > > > > > > Change is the world, the certain constant, it makes the way what > > the > > > way is now. > > > > > > Awareness does not move. > > > > > > Where is the looker? > > > > Impersonal awareness is the looker, but this is not a " thing " , it > is > > the One Subject. > > > What looker? What subject? > > > > > > > Just means you cannot say YES or NO exclusively, that both > are > > > > > sometimes simultaneously true with no contradiction. > > > > > > > > Yes, like in nothing moves, and what moves is a point in the > > > timeless>>>>> > > > > > > > > > What point? > > > >>>> Nothing moves. Change does not happen in reality>>>>> > > > Change is a part of reality, like heat is a part of fire. > > > >Think of reality as > > an infinite DVD record. The DVD itself does not move, it is > timeless. > > Awareness observes a single point in this DVD creating your Now.>>> > > > You can't *think* of reality as anything. > > > >This > > observation is neither creation nor destruction. Nothing moves. As > an > > _automatic_ result the observation of one point in this DVD results > > in the observation of another point creating the appearance of time > > > > Again, nothing changes, the result of one point leading to another > > point of observation timelessly *is*. > > > > Everyone is _completely_ powerless, including George W Bush. :-) >>> > > > If only that were true! > > > > > > *Who* declares the above? > > > > A timeless point in absolute existence. > > > How can a timeless point in absolute existence make a claim? > > *Who* declares the above? There is no one making a claim. The claim happens as a part of Totality. Think of the timeless point leading to another timeless point automatically. There is no _doer_ of anything. You seem to think of time as having a beginning in the past or as having been going on from an infinite past ago. We exist now. The past has never happened. The past is a fixed static memory track appearing Now. You have lived for zero seconds. How can you say that a static memory track containing the image of you communicating is real communication? You have _never_ been in the past. So how can you have communicated something? > > > > > > We, 'You' and 'Me' can say many things , but the way that can > be > > > spoken...... > > > >>>>> Yes, but no one is doing anything>>>>> > > >>>Not even time is doing anything. >>>> > > > > Time has never and will never do anything because time *cannot DO* > anything. It's not real, of itself. > > > >>> Not even the Universe is doing anything>>>> > > > Yes, the universe or total IS. > > > >>>> Welcome to the Timeless Matrix. :-)>>>>> > > > I'm enjoying the trip Luke Skywalker Be mindful of the living Force, my padawan learner. ;-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Hi again, > > > > *Who* declares the above? > > > > > > A timeless point in absolute existence. > > > > > > How can a timeless point in absolute existence make a claim? > > > > *Who* declares the above? >>There is no one making a claim.>> What about the timeless point in existences' claim? Who now claims there is no one making a claim? <<<<The claim happens as a part of > Totality.>>>>> Yes, ( the claim that is not being made ) is part of the totality. >>>>>Think of the timeless point leading to another timeless > point automatically.>>>>> Ok...and after that? >>>>>There is no _doer_ of anything.>> Of course there is.. Who mows the lawn? >>>>You seem to > think of time as having a beginning in the past or as having been > going on from an infinite past ago>>>>> No, times arrows have direction, but there is no such (real) thing as time and it does not *cause* anything. >>>>We exist now.>> Yes. >>The past has never happened.>> Yes, it has. >>The past is a fixed static memory track appearing Now>> The past 'will' occurr, 'has' occurred, 'does' occurr and 'can only' occurr NOW. Let us both pull on each end of NOW 'forever' and see what we end up with >You > have lived for zero seconds>> No, I haven't, I have lived for 31, nearly 32 years, and it is a ME that says so! >How can you say that a static memory > track containing the image of you communicating is real > communication?>>>> I haven't said anything like this >>>You have _never_ been in the past>>>> Yes, I have. >So how can you have > communicated something?>>> *Communication* is happening between *you* and *me*. And it takes a *you* and *me* TO communicate. > > I'm enjoying the trip Luke Skywalker > > Be mindful of the living Force, my padawan learner. ;-) Be *mindful* always. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
