Guest guest Report post Posted July 20, 2004 The 'you' is a 'creation' of fear. Without the black soil of fear you would not be experiencing yourself as a separate individual. Fear is merely the black/white background needed in order for Life to paint on. You have to rise from fear, like a seed planted in black soil sprouting into a blooming tree. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 20, 2004 Hi again, > The 'you' is a 'creation' of fear. Without the black soil of fear you > would not be experiencing yourself as a separate individual. Fear is > merely the black/white background needed in order for Life to paint > on. You have to rise from fear, like a seed planted in black soil > sprouting into a blooming tree. No. Fear is an emotion. Fear does not create or make a seperate ME. A ME is conceptualizing about what it thinks it is that makes IT a ME, and what makes IT seperate. ***A ME is thinking about what binds it, yet this thinking *itself* is what binds a ME to a ME*** This conceptualizing and thinking further binds a ME and it perpetuates more concepts ( from incorrect initial vague assumptions ) What it is and what it amounts to is a ME *guessing* ( by thinking ) about the reasons to explain certain beliefs that the ME holds; The emotion of fear is something that is being used to explain how a seperate individual comes to exist because there is a belief ( held by that ME ) that there is no seperation in reality. The ME goes on to try and explain how this seperation must come about by making guesses to explain it, but that thinking is ITSELF what makes a ME seperate, it is then further bound as THAT ME. 'Fear' is chosen as an explanation ( a guess ) to support a belief. Both the assumption of the belief and the tryed-for explanation bind that ME. There is only one thing to DO and that is to stop thinkING. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > The 'you' is a 'creation' of fear. Without the black soil of fear > you > > would not be experiencing yourself as a separate individual. Fear > is > > merely the black/white background needed in order for Life to paint > > on. You have to rise from fear, like a seed planted in black soil > > sprouting into a blooming tree. > > > No. > Fear is an emotion. > Fear does not create or make a seperate ME. > > A ME is conceptualizing about what it thinks it is that makes IT a > ME, and what makes IT seperate. > > ***A ME is thinking about what binds it, yet this thinking *itself* > is what binds a ME to a ME*** > > This conceptualizing and thinking further binds a ME and it > perpetuates more concepts ( from incorrect initial vague assumptions ) > > What it is and what it amounts to is a ME *guessing* ( by thinking ) > about the reasons to explain certain beliefs that the ME holds; > > The emotion of fear is something that is being used to explain how a > seperate individual comes to exist because there is a belief ( held > by that ME ) that there is no seperation in reality. > > The ME goes on to try and explain how this seperation must come about > by making guesses to explain it, but that thinking is ITSELF what > makes a ME seperate, it is then further bound as THAT ME. > > 'Fear' is chosen as an explanation ( a guess ) to support a belief. > > Both the assumption of the belief and the tryed-for explanation bind > that ME. > > There is only one thing to DO and that is to stop thinkING. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. There is only one thing to do and that is what we are doing right now. ;-) /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 21, 2004 Hi again, > > > The 'you' is a 'creation' of fear. Without the black soil of fear > > you > > > would not be experiencing yourself as a separate individual. Fear > > is > > > merely the black/white background needed in order for Life to > paint > > > on. You have to rise from fear, like a seed planted in black soil > > > sprouting into a blooming tree. > > > > > > No. > > Fear is an emotion. > > Fear does not create or make a seperate ME. > > > > A ME is conceptualizing about what it thinks it is that makes IT a > > ME, and what makes IT seperate. > > > > ***A ME is thinking about what binds it, yet this thinking *itself* > > is what binds a ME to a ME*** > > > > This conceptualizing and thinking further binds a ME and it > > perpetuates more concepts ( from incorrect initial vague > assumptions ) > > > > What it is and what it amounts to is a ME *guessing* ( by > thinking ) > > about the reasons to explain certain beliefs that the ME holds; > > > > The emotion of fear is something that is being used to explain how > a > > seperate individual comes to exist because there is a belief ( held > > by that ME ) that there is no seperation in reality. > > > > The ME goes on to try and explain how this seperation must come > about > > by making guesses to explain it, but that thinking is ITSELF what > > makes a ME seperate, it is then further bound as THAT ME. > > > > 'Fear' is chosen as an explanation ( a guess ) to support a belief. > > > > Both the assumption of the belief and the tryed-for explanation > bind > > that ME. > > > > There is only one thing to DO and that is to stop thinkING. > There is only one thing to do and that is what we are doing right > now. ;-) Only a ME can DO, the ME cannot *realize* what it is. The ME can express what it IS and can also express, *has* to express what 'God' is. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 21, 2004 Hi Scott, Allow me a question about " doing " . What is this for you ? As far as I have realized you have a holistic view in which no autonomous doing is possible. Therefore the doing of the ME (as you define it) is a reacive doing and not autonomous. Is that how you see it ? As I can see for Anders *doing* implies autnonomy and therefore a ME can't do. Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > The 'you' is a 'creation' of fear. Without the black soil of > fear > > > you > > > > would not be experiencing yourself as a separate individual. > Fear > > > is > > > > merely the black/white background needed in order for Life to > > paint > > > > on. You have to rise from fear, like a seed planted in black > soil > > > > sprouting into a blooming tree. > > > > > > > > > No. > > > Fear is an emotion. > > > Fear does not create or make a seperate ME. > > > > > > A ME is conceptualizing about what it thinks it is that makes IT > a > > > ME, and what makes IT seperate. > > > > > > ***A ME is thinking about what binds it, yet this thinking > *itself* > > > is what binds a ME to a ME*** > > > > > > This conceptualizing and thinking further binds a ME and it > > > perpetuates more concepts ( from incorrect initial vague > > assumptions ) > > > > > > What it is and what it amounts to is a ME *guessing* ( by > > thinking ) > > > about the reasons to explain certain beliefs that the ME holds; > > > > > > The emotion of fear is something that is being used to explain > how > > a > > > seperate individual comes to exist because there is a belief ( > held > > > by that ME ) that there is no seperation in reality. > > > > > > The ME goes on to try and explain how this seperation must come > > about > > > by making guesses to explain it, but that thinking is ITSELF what > > > makes a ME seperate, it is then further bound as THAT ME. > > > > > > 'Fear' is chosen as an explanation ( a guess ) to support a > belief. > > > > > > Both the assumption of the belief and the tryed-for explanation > > bind > > > that ME. > > > > > > There is only one thing to DO and that is to stop thinkING. > > > There is only one thing to do and that is what we are doing right > > now. ;-) > > > Only a ME can DO, the ME cannot *realize* what it is. > > The ME can express what it IS and can also express, *has* to express > what 'God' is. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 21, 2004 Hello, > Allow me a question about " doing " . What is this for you ? As far as I > have realized you have a holistic view in which no autonomous doing > is possible. Therefore the doing of the ME (as you define it) is a > reacive doing and not autonomous. Is that how you see it ? There is no difference ( *nor contradiction* ) between a personal self ( ME ) DOing and the unity functioning, they are the same *one* thing *only*. > As I can see for Anders *doing* implies autnonomy and therefore a ME > can't do. I think Anders is saying there is no free will of a ME whereas, I am saying that there IS free will and unity functioning and these are *not 2* and yet there is no contradiction between them in any way, it is one thing only. Kind Regards, Scott. > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > The 'you' is a 'creation' of fear. Without the black soil of > > fear > > > > you > > > > > would not be experiencing yourself as a separate individual. > > Fear > > > > is > > > > > merely the black/white background needed in order for Life to > > > paint > > > > > on. You have to rise from fear, like a seed planted in black > > soil > > > > > sprouting into a blooming tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > Fear is an emotion. > > > > Fear does not create or make a seperate ME. > > > > > > > > A ME is conceptualizing about what it thinks it is that makes > IT > > a > > > > ME, and what makes IT seperate. > > > > > > > > ***A ME is thinking about what binds it, yet this thinking > > *itself* > > > > is what binds a ME to a ME*** > > > > > > > > This conceptualizing and thinking further binds a ME and it > > > > perpetuates more concepts ( from incorrect initial vague > > > assumptions ) > > > > > > > > What it is and what it amounts to is a ME *guessing* ( by > > > thinking ) > > > > about the reasons to explain certain beliefs that the ME holds; > > > > > > > > The emotion of fear is something that is being used to explain > > how > > > a > > > > seperate individual comes to exist because there is a belief ( > > held > > > > by that ME ) that there is no seperation in reality. > > > > > > > > The ME goes on to try and explain how this seperation must come > > > about > > > > by making guesses to explain it, but that thinking is ITSELF > what > > > > makes a ME seperate, it is then further bound as THAT ME. > > > > > > > > 'Fear' is chosen as an explanation ( a guess ) to support a > > belief. > > > > > > > > Both the assumption of the belief and the tryed-for explanation > > > bind > > > > that ME. > > > > > > > > There is only one thing to DO and that is to stop thinkING. > > > > > There is only one thing to do and that is what we are doing right > > > now. ;-) > > > > > > Only a ME can DO, the ME cannot *realize* what it is. > > > > The ME can express what it IS and can also express, *has* to > express > > what 'God' is. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 21, 2004 Hmm Scott, Here I have difficulties. As I see it, free will is independent will but in the holistic view everything is interrelated, interdependent and nothing is autonomus - if one sees it's unity or not. Or is for you unity = God ? That would explain it, but in both cases I can't follow you. Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hello, > > > Allow me a question about " doing " . What is this for you ? As far as > I > > have realized you have a holistic view in which no autonomous doing > > is possible. Therefore the doing of the ME (as you define it) is a > > reacive doing and not autonomous. Is that how you see it ? > > There is no difference ( *nor contradiction* ) between a personal > self ( ME ) DOing and the unity functioning, they are the same *one* > thing *only*. > > > > As I can see for Anders *doing* implies autnonomy and therefore a > ME > > can't do. > > > I think Anders is saying there is no free will of a ME whereas, I am > saying that there IS free will and unity functioning and these are > *not 2* and yet there is no contradiction between them in any way, it > is one thing only. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > The 'you' is a 'creation' of fear. Without the black soil > of > > > fear > > > > > you > > > > > > would not be experiencing yourself as a separate > individual. > > > Fear > > > > > is > > > > > > merely the black/white background needed in order for Life > to > > > > paint > > > > > > on. You have to rise from fear, like a seed planted in > black > > > soil > > > > > > sprouting into a blooming tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > Fear is an emotion. > > > > > Fear does not create or make a seperate ME. > > > > > > > > > > A ME is conceptualizing about what it thinks it is that makes > > IT > > > a > > > > > ME, and what makes IT seperate. > > > > > > > > > > ***A ME is thinking about what binds it, yet this thinking > > > *itself* > > > > > is what binds a ME to a ME*** > > > > > > > > > > This conceptualizing and thinking further binds a ME and it > > > > > perpetuates more concepts ( from incorrect initial vague > > > > assumptions ) > > > > > > > > > > What it is and what it amounts to is a ME *guessing* ( by > > > > thinking ) > > > > > about the reasons to explain certain beliefs that the ME > holds; > > > > > > > > > > The emotion of fear is something that is being used to > explain > > > how > > > > a > > > > > seperate individual comes to exist because there is a belief > ( > > > held > > > > > by that ME ) that there is no seperation in reality. > > > > > > > > > > The ME goes on to try and explain how this seperation must > come > > > > about > > > > > by making guesses to explain it, but that thinking is ITSELF > > what > > > > > makes a ME seperate, it is then further bound as THAT ME. > > > > > > > > > > 'Fear' is chosen as an explanation ( a guess ) to support a > > > belief. > > > > > > > > > > Both the assumption of the belief and the tryed-for > explanation > > > > bind > > > > > that ME. > > > > > > > > > > There is only one thing to DO and that is to stop thinkING. > > > > > > > There is only one thing to do and that is what we are doing > right > > > > now. ;-) > > > > > > > > > Only a ME can DO, the ME cannot *realize* what it is. > > > > > > The ME can express what it IS and can also express, *has* to > > express > > > what 'God' is. > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 21, 2004 Hi again, > Here I have difficulties As I see it, free will is independent will > but in the holistic view everything is interrelated> There is no difference between these '2'. *AND* there is no contradiction. interdependent > and nothing is autonomus - if one sees it's unity or not. Or is for > you unity = God ?> Yes, you can say that God is unity, but God is also NOT that. Some say the Buddha is ALL, but there is no such thing. That would explain it, but in both cases I can't > follow you. My advice is the same, *stop thinking* and find out WHO it is that thinks or holds a belief about the *that*, the that that is the world. Kind Regards, Scott. > > > Allow me a question about " doing " . What is this for you ? As far > as > > I > > > have realized you have a holistic view in which no autonomous > doing > > > is possible. Therefore the doing of the ME (as you define it) is > a > > > reacive doing and not autonomous. Is that how you see it ? > > > > There is no difference ( *nor contradiction* ) between a personal > > self ( ME ) DOing and the unity functioning, they are the same > *one* > > thing *only*. > > > > > > > As I can see for Anders *doing* implies autnonomy and therefore a > > ME > > > can't do. > > > > > > I think Anders is saying there is no free will of a ME whereas, I > am > > saying that there IS free will and unity functioning and these are > > *not 2* and yet there is no contradiction between them in any way, > it > > is one thing only. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > The 'you' is a 'creation' of fear. Without the black soil > > of > > > > fear > > > > > > you > > > > > > > would not be experiencing yourself as a separate > > individual. > > > > Fear > > > > > > is > > > > > > > merely the black/white background needed in order for > Life > > to > > > > > paint > > > > > > > on. You have to rise from fear, like a seed planted in > > black > > > > soil > > > > > > > sprouting into a blooming tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > Fear is an emotion. > > > > > > Fear does not create or make a seperate ME. > > > > > > > > > > > > A ME is conceptualizing about what it thinks it is that > makes > > > IT > > > > a > > > > > > ME, and what makes IT seperate. > > > > > > > > > > > > ***A ME is thinking about what binds it, yet this thinking > > > > *itself* > > > > > > is what binds a ME to a ME*** > > > > > > > > > > > > This conceptualizing and thinking further binds a ME and it > > > > > > perpetuates more concepts ( from incorrect initial vague > > > > > assumptions ) > > > > > > > > > > > > What it is and what it amounts to is a ME *guessing* ( by > > > > > thinking ) > > > > > > about the reasons to explain certain beliefs that the ME > > holds; > > > > > > > > > > > > The emotion of fear is something that is being used to > > explain > > > > how > > > > > a > > > > > > seperate individual comes to exist because there is a > belief > > ( > > > > held > > > > > > by that ME ) that there is no seperation in reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > The ME goes on to try and explain how this seperation must > > come > > > > > about > > > > > > by making guesses to explain it, but that thinking is > ITSELF > > > what > > > > > > makes a ME seperate, it is then further bound as THAT ME. > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Fear' is chosen as an explanation ( a guess ) to support a > > > > belief. > > > > > > > > > > > > Both the assumption of the belief and the tryed-for > > explanation > > > > > bind > > > > > > that ME. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only one thing to DO and that is to stop > thinkING. > > > > > > > > > There is only one thing to do and that is what we are doing > > right > > > > > now. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a ME can DO, the ME cannot *realize* what it is. > > > > > > > > The ME can express what it IS and can also express, *has* to > > > express > > > > what 'God' is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > The 'you' is a 'creation' of fear. Without the black soil of > fear > > > you > > > > would not be experiencing yourself as a separate individual. > Fear > > > is > > > > merely the black/white background needed in order for Life to > > paint > > > > on. You have to rise from fear, like a seed planted in black > soil > > > > sprouting into a blooming tree. > > > > > > > > > No. > > > Fear is an emotion. > > > Fear does not create or make a seperate ME. > > > > > > A ME is conceptualizing about what it thinks it is that makes IT > a > > > ME, and what makes IT seperate. > > > > > > ***A ME is thinking about what binds it, yet this thinking > *itself* > > > is what binds a ME to a ME*** > > > > > > This conceptualizing and thinking further binds a ME and it > > > perpetuates more concepts ( from incorrect initial vague > > assumptions ) > > > > > > What it is and what it amounts to is a ME *guessing* ( by > > thinking ) > > > about the reasons to explain certain beliefs that the ME holds; > > > > > > The emotion of fear is something that is being used to explain > how > > a > > > seperate individual comes to exist because there is a belief ( > held > > > by that ME ) that there is no seperation in reality. > > > > > > The ME goes on to try and explain how this seperation must come > > about > > > by making guesses to explain it, but that thinking is ITSELF what > > > makes a ME seperate, it is then further bound as THAT ME. > > > > > > 'Fear' is chosen as an explanation ( a guess ) to support a > belief. > > > > > > Both the assumption of the belief and the tryed-for explanation > > bind > > > that ME. > > > > > > There is only one thing to DO and that is to stop thinkING. > > > There is only one thing to do and that is what we are doing right > > now. ;-) > > > Only a ME can DO, the ME cannot *realize* what it is. > > The ME can express what it IS and can also express, *has* to express > what 'God' is. Yes, only a ME can do, and that is the illusion. The illusion is that there is a separate doer! So the doing is there, the doing is reality for that ME, but both the ME as a doer and the doing only exist as a mutual illusion. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 21, 2004 Hi Scott, Thanks for the advice to stop thinking. I fear I will fail following this advice. But how about if you start thinking ? Your next tip to find out WHO is thinking, I must tell you I am not interested in that vichara thingy. Have you already found it ? Not intellectually, but really ? No, you didn't, right ? Next: Because you believe in free will, do you in addition believe in sin ? Are you suffering from feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? I am asking this because those are the *natural* result when believing in free will. Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > Here I have difficulties As I see it, free will is independent will > > but in the holistic view everything is interrelated> > > > There is no difference between these '2'. > *AND* there is no contradiction. > > > interdependent > > and nothing is autonomus - if one sees it's unity or not. Or is for > > you unity = God ?> > > > Yes, you can say that God is unity, but God is also NOT that. > > Some say the Buddha is ALL, but there is no such thing. > > > That would explain it, but in both cases I can't > > follow you. > > My advice is the same, *stop thinking* and find out WHO it is that > thinks or holds a belief about the *that*, the that that is the world. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > > Allow me a question about " doing " . What is this for you ? As > far > > as > > > I > > > > have realized you have a holistic view in which no autonomous > > doing > > > > is possible. Therefore the doing of the ME (as you define it) > is > > a > > > > reacive doing and not autonomous. Is that how you see it ? > > > > > > There is no difference ( *nor contradiction* ) between a personal > > > self ( ME ) DOing and the unity functioning, they are the same > > *one* > > > thing *only*. > > > > > > > > > > As I can see for Anders *doing* implies autnonomy and therefore > a > > > ME > > > > can't do. > > > > > > > > > I think Anders is saying there is no free will of a ME whereas, I > > am > > > saying that there IS free will and unity functioning and these > are > > > *not 2* and yet there is no contradiction between them in any > way, > > it > > > is one thing only. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'you' is a 'creation' of fear. Without the black > soil > > > of > > > > > fear > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > would not be experiencing yourself as a separate > > > individual. > > > > > Fear > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > merely the black/white background needed in order for > > Life > > > to > > > > > > paint > > > > > > > > on. You have to rise from fear, like a seed planted in > > > black > > > > > soil > > > > > > > > sprouting into a blooming tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > Fear is an emotion. > > > > > > > Fear does not create or make a seperate ME. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A ME is conceptualizing about what it thinks it is that > > makes > > > > IT > > > > > a > > > > > > > ME, and what makes IT seperate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***A ME is thinking about what binds it, yet this > thinking > > > > > *itself* > > > > > > > is what binds a ME to a ME*** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This conceptualizing and thinking further binds a ME and > it > > > > > > > perpetuates more concepts ( from incorrect initial vague > > > > > > assumptions ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it is and what it amounts to is a ME *guessing* ( by > > > > > > thinking ) > > > > > > > about the reasons to explain certain beliefs that the ME > > > holds; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The emotion of fear is something that is being used to > > > explain > > > > > how > > > > > > a > > > > > > > seperate individual comes to exist because there is a > > belief > > > ( > > > > > held > > > > > > > by that ME ) that there is no seperation in reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ME goes on to try and explain how this seperation > must > > > come > > > > > > about > > > > > > > by making guesses to explain it, but that thinking is > > ITSELF > > > > what > > > > > > > makes a ME seperate, it is then further bound as THAT ME. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Fear' is chosen as an explanation ( a guess ) to support > a > > > > > belief. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both the assumption of the belief and the tryed-for > > > explanation > > > > > > bind > > > > > > > that ME. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only one thing to DO and that is to stop > > thinkING. > > > > > > > > > > > There is only one thing to do and that is what we are doing > > > right > > > > > > now. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a ME can DO, the ME cannot *realize* what it is. > > > > > > > > > > The ME can express what it IS and can also express, *has* to > > > > express > > > > > what 'God' is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 22, 2004 Hi > > Only a ME can DO, the ME cannot *realize* what it is. > > > > The ME can express what it IS and can also express, *has* to > express > > what 'God' is. > Yes, only a ME can do, and that is the illusion. The illusion is that > there is a separate doer!> The DOer is seperate. So the doing is there, the doing is reality > for that ME, but both the ME as a doer and the doing only exist as a > mutual illusion> The illusion or *contradiction* is that a ME does have free will and the unity functions and these are not 2 *yet* there is absolutely no contradiction whatsover, apart from when one is ruled out to the exlcusion of the other. Which is a ME selecting a belief. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 22, 2004 Hi again, > Thanks for the advice to stop thinking. I fear I will fail following > this advice. But how about if you start thinking ? I meant by stop thinking to stop conceptualizing about *all this*. Stop thinking about reality, God, the universe etc, to instead find out WHO it is that wants to know *all this* and what in actual fact are the conclusions and conceptualizations that you or any else formulates, believes or accepts as being true. > Your next tip to find out WHO is thinking, I must tell you I am not > interested in that vichara thingy> Yes, find out WHO it is that thinks and WHO it is that thinks of itself as such. Who are 'you'? 'Gnothi se auton Man know thyself' This isn't new advice >Have you already found it ?> This is an ignorant question. Please do not take that as a personal attack, I mean exactly that; It is *ignorant* to ask ME the question you have above. >Not > intellectually, but really ? No, you didn't, right ? See above. Do you believe in enlightenment? > Next: > Because you believe in free will, do you in addition believe in sin ?> No, sin is a made up construction of religion which instills fear in people and / or controls them to within the guidelines and teachings of that establishment which determines what is good and what is bad and what we should or should not be doing.. > Are you suffering from feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? No. >I > am asking this because those are the *natural* result when believing > in free will. I cannot in anyway see how you have come to the conclusion of linking feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex with a belief in free will? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 22, 2004 Dear Scott, That you weren't attacking me I did know, but I was attacking YOU ! I already was willing to accept your view and then you started that free will thing which implies autonomy. In a holistic system there is no autonomy possible even if you have a pantheistic view. This God which is the universe is already bound to the laws of the universe, which are it's own laws. Even this God has no autonomy. Therefore I told you, what about if you start thinking. Why sin, feelings of guilt and insufficency complex are the *natural* result of the belief in free will, I think Anders can explaint to you - he is thinking a lot, but if you are willing to think a bit more you will find the answer yourself. And again I am asking you this *ignorant* question: Have you found WHO is thinking ? Not intellectually but really ... You asked me if I believe in enlightenment, I would say at that moment you tell me you have found that WHO is thinking and you can explain it to me, I will believe in enlightenment. Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > Thanks for the advice to stop thinking. I fear I will fail > following > > this advice. But how about if you start thinking ? > > I meant by stop thinking to stop conceptualizing about *all this*. > > Stop thinking about reality, God, the universe etc, to instead find > out WHO it is that wants to know *all this* and what in actual fact > are the conclusions and conceptualizations that you or any else > formulates, believes or accepts as being true. > > > > > Your next tip to find out WHO is thinking, I must tell you I am not > > interested in that vichara thingy> > > > Yes, find out WHO it is that thinks and WHO it is that thinks of > itself as such. > > Who are 'you'? > > 'Gnothi se auton > Man know thyself' > > This isn't new advice > > > > >Have you already found it ?> > > > This is an ignorant question. > > Please do not take that as a personal attack, I mean exactly that; > It is *ignorant* to ask ME the question you have above. > > > >Not > > intellectually, but really ? No, you didn't, right ? > > See above. > > Do you believe in enlightenment? > > > > Next: > > Because you believe in free will, do you in addition believe in > sin ?> > > > No, sin is a made up construction of religion which instills fear in > people and / or controls them to within the guidelines and teachings > of that establishment which determines what is good and what is bad > and what we should or should not be doing.. > > > > Are you suffering from feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? > > No. > > > >I > > am asking this because those are the *natural* result when > believing > > in free will. > > > I cannot in anyway see how you have come to the conclusion of linking > feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex with a belief in free > will? > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 22, 2004 Hi again, > That you weren't attacking me I did know, but I was attacking YOU !> Ok. > I already was willing to accept your view and then you started that > free will thing which implies autonomy. Free will as I have spoken about it does not contradict with the notion of autonomy or of no autonomy. The free will and the free functioning of the unity are not two things, *except* when they are split into 2 by a ME, which selects as a belief the one it holds to be correct to the exlcusion of the other which it then deems to be false. In a holistic system there is > no autonomy possible even if you have a pantheistic view> This is one side of the contradiction that I mentioned above and previously. This God > which is the universe is already bound to the laws of the universe> What 'God' is bound? > which are it's own laws. Even this God has no autonomy. What makes 'God' what he IS? > Therefore I told you, what about if you start thinking. > > Why sin, feelings of guilt and insufficency complex are the *natural* > result of the belief in free will, I think Anders can explaint to > you - he is thinking a lot, but if you are willing to think a bit > more you will find the answer yourself. Again, I do not see in anyway how you have come to this conclusion or assumption and I would love to hear from Anders or anyone why this belief would be held. > > And again I am asking you this *ignorant* question: Have you found > WHO is thinking ? Not intellectually but really ... I have already given you the answer to the question you asked. Find out *why* it is ignorant, then there will be no *need* to ask. > You asked me if I believe in enlightenment, I would say at that > moment you tell me you have found that WHO is thinking and you can > explain it to me, I will believe in enlightenment. Are you looking for enlightenment? Kind Regards, Scott > > Hi again, > > > > > Thanks for the advice to stop thinking. I fear I will fail > > following > > > this advice. But how about if you start thinking ? > > > > I meant by stop thinking to stop conceptualizing about *all this*. > > > > Stop thinking about reality, God, the universe etc, to instead find > > out WHO it is that wants to know *all this* and what in actual fact > > are the conclusions and conceptualizations that you or any else > > formulates, believes or accepts as being true. > > > > > > > > > Your next tip to find out WHO is thinking, I must tell you I am > not > > > interested in that vichara thingy> > > > > > > Yes, find out WHO it is that thinks and WHO it is that thinks of > > itself as such. > > > > Who are 'you'? > > > > 'Gnothi se auton > > Man know thyself' > > > > This isn't new advice > > > > > > > > >Have you already found it ?> > > > > > > This is an ignorant question. > > > > Please do not take that as a personal attack, I mean exactly that; > > It is *ignorant* to ask ME the question you have above. > > > > > > >Not > > > intellectually, but really ? No, you didn't, right ? > > > > See above. > > > > Do you believe in enlightenment? > > > > > > > Next: > > > Because you believe in free will, do you in addition believe in > > sin ?> > > > > > > No, sin is a made up construction of religion which instills fear > in > > people and / or controls them to within the guidelines and > teachings > > of that establishment which determines what is good and what is bad > > and what we should or should not be doing.. > > > > > > > Are you suffering from feelings of guilt and insufficency > complex ? > > > > No. > > > > > > >I > > > am asking this because those are the *natural* result when > > believing > > > in free will. > > > > > > I cannot in anyway see how you have come to the conclusion of > linking > > feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex with a belief in free > > will? > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 22, 2004 Hi Scott, Again: Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter how you twist it to fit into your strange unity system. And if it doesn't fit you draw your joker card: Stop thinking ! Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, but then try to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT FREE WILL ! Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system how to find a better way to sell it. Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > That you weren't attacking me I did know, but I was attacking YOU !> > > > Ok. > > > > I already was willing to accept your view and then you started that > > free will thing which implies autonomy. > > Free will as I have spoken about it does not contradict with the > notion of autonomy or of no autonomy. > > The free will and the free functioning of the unity are not two > things, *except* when they are split into 2 by a ME, which selects as > a belief the one it holds to be correct to the exlcusion of the other > which it then deems to be false. > > > In a holistic system there is > > no autonomy possible even if you have a pantheistic view> > > > This is one side of the contradiction that I mentioned above and > previously. > > > This God > > which is the universe is already bound to the laws of the universe> > > > What 'God' is bound? > > > > which are it's own laws. Even this God has no autonomy. > > > What makes 'God' what he IS? > > > > Therefore I told you, what about if you start thinking. > > > > Why sin, feelings of guilt and insufficency complex are the > *natural* > > result of the belief in free will, I think Anders can explaint to > > you - he is thinking a lot, but if you are willing to think a bit > > more you will find the answer yourself. > > > Again, I do not see in anyway how you have come to this conclusion or > assumption and I would love to hear from Anders or anyone why this > belief would be held. > > > > > > And again I am asking you this *ignorant* question: Have you found > > WHO is thinking ? Not intellectually but really ... > > > I have already given you the answer to the question you asked. > > Find out *why* it is ignorant, then there will be no *need* to ask. > > > > > You asked me if I believe in enlightenment, I would say at that > > moment you tell me you have found that WHO is thinking and you can > > explain it to me, I will believe in enlightenment. > > Are you looking for enlightenment? > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > Thanks for the advice to stop thinking. I fear I will fail > > > following > > > > this advice. But how about if you start thinking ? > > > > > > I meant by stop thinking to stop conceptualizing about *all this*. > > > > > > Stop thinking about reality, God, the universe etc, to instead > find > > > out WHO it is that wants to know *all this* and what in actual > fact > > > are the conclusions and conceptualizations that you or any else > > > formulates, believes or accepts as being true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your next tip to find out WHO is thinking, I must tell you I am > > not > > > > interested in that vichara thingy> > > > > > > > > > Yes, find out WHO it is that thinks and WHO it is that thinks of > > > itself as such. > > > > > > Who are 'you'? > > > > > > 'Gnothi se auton > > > Man know thyself' > > > > > > This isn't new advice > > > > > > > > > > > > >Have you already found it ?> > > > > > > > > > This is an ignorant question. > > > > > > Please do not take that as a personal attack, I mean exactly that; > > > It is *ignorant* to ask ME the question you have above. > > > > > > > > > >Not > > > > intellectually, but really ? No, you didn't, right ? > > > > > > See above. > > > > > > Do you believe in enlightenment? > > > > > > > > > > Next: > > > > Because you believe in free will, do you in addition believe in > > > sin ?> > > > > > > > > > No, sin is a made up construction of religion which instills fear > > in > > > people and / or controls them to within the guidelines and > > teachings > > > of that establishment which determines what is good and what is > bad > > > and what we should or should not be doing.. > > > > > > > > > > Are you suffering from feelings of guilt and insufficency > > complex ? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > >I > > > > am asking this because those are the *natural* result when > > > believing > > > > in free will. > > > > > > > > > I cannot in anyway see how you have come to the conclusion of > > linking > > > feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex with a belief in free > > > will? > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 22, 2004 Hi again, > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter how you twist > it to fit into your strange unity system. What makes the unity / whole what it is? The only contradiction that arises as I said is when one option is excluded to the choice of the other. A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it believes is correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of either one means a contradiction. If you fall on either side of the fence you will find inconsistency and have a *belief to defend*. And if it doesn't fit you > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> This was advice. Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man in search of himself and God. Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and find out WHO 'you' are. > Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, but then try > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT FREE WILL ! By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most people mean when they speak of free will. > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system how to find a > better way to sell it. I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or otherwise, anyone or anything. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 22, 2004 Messages Messages Help Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete Message 13948 of 13948 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg # " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:55 pm Re: Fearlessness Ok Scott, Then what is your message ? God ? Union with the Beloved ? Are you a Sufi ? Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would be a joke) ? These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces since many hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly pretented they did it. Have you stopped thinking or still trying ? Have you found yourself or still trying ? You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ? Because many before told the same ? " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell others the path to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter how you twist > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when one option is > excluded to the choice of the other. > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it believes is > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of either one > means a contradiction. > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find inconsistency > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > This was advice. > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man in search of > himself and God. > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and find out > WHO 'you' are. > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, but then try > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT FREE WILL ! > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most people mean when > they speak of free will. > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system how to find > a > > better way to sell it. > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or otherwise, anyone > or anything. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi > > > > Only a ME can DO, the ME cannot *realize* what it is. > > > > > > The ME can express what it IS and can also express, *has* to > > express > > > what 'God' is. > > > > Yes, only a ME can do, and that is the illusion. The illusion is > that > > there is a separate doer!> > > > The DOer is seperate. > > > So the doing is there, the doing is reality > > for that ME, but both the ME as a doer and the doing only exist as > a > > mutual illusion> > > > The illusion or *contradiction* is that a ME does have free will and > the unity functions and these are not 2 *yet* there is absolutely no > contradiction whatsover, apart from when one is ruled out to the > exlcusion of the other. Which is a ME selecting a belief. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. " Thy will be done " means God's will be done. God's will and your will are not two. :-) /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > That you weren't attacking me I did know, but I was attacking YOU !> > > > Ok. > > > > I already was willing to accept your view and then you started that > > free will thing which implies autonomy. > > Free will as I have spoken about it does not contradict with the > notion of autonomy or of no autonomy. > > The free will and the free functioning of the unity are not two > things, *except* when they are split into 2 by a ME, which selects as > a belief the one it holds to be correct to the exlcusion of the other > which it then deems to be false. > > > In a holistic system there is > > no autonomy possible even if you have a pantheistic view> > > > This is one side of the contradiction that I mentioned above and > previously. > > > This God > > which is the universe is already bound to the laws of the universe> > > > What 'God' is bound? > > > > which are it's own laws. Even this God has no autonomy. > > > What makes 'God' what he IS? > > > > Therefore I told you, what about if you start thinking. > > > > Why sin, feelings of guilt and insufficency complex are the > *natural* > > result of the belief in free will, I think Anders can explaint to > > you - he is thinking a lot, but if you are willing to think a bit > > more you will find the answer yourself. > > > Again, I do not see in anyway how you have come to this conclusion or > assumption and I would love to hear from Anders or anyone why this > belief would be held. As long as you believe that you can do anything wrong, then the shadow of sin will be hovering over you - and in you - all day long. And personal free will means that you *can* do something wrong. I like to use this hellish scenario: Not even God wants to have free will. Why? Because being all powerful, God could will itself into an infinite nightmare. And if that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own free will. Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two. /AL > > > > > > And again I am asking you this *ignorant* question: Have you found > > WHO is thinking ? Not intellectually but really ... > > > I have already given you the answer to the question you asked. > > Find out *why* it is ignorant, then there will be no *need* to ask. > > > > > You asked me if I believe in enlightenment, I would say at that > > moment you tell me you have found that WHO is thinking and you can > > explain it to me, I will believe in enlightenment. > > Are you looking for enlightenment? > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > Thanks for the advice to stop thinking. I fear I will fail > > > following > > > > this advice. But how about if you start thinking ? > > > > > > I meant by stop thinking to stop conceptualizing about *all this*. > > > > > > Stop thinking about reality, God, the universe etc, to instead > find > > > out WHO it is that wants to know *all this* and what in actual > fact > > > are the conclusions and conceptualizations that you or any else > > > formulates, believes or accepts as being true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your next tip to find out WHO is thinking, I must tell you I am > > not > > > > interested in that vichara thingy> > > > > > > > > > Yes, find out WHO it is that thinks and WHO it is that thinks of > > > itself as such. > > > > > > Who are 'you'? > > > > > > 'Gnothi se auton > > > Man know thyself' > > > > > > This isn't new advice > > > > > > > > > > > > >Have you already found it ?> > > > > > > > > > This is an ignorant question. > > > > > > Please do not take that as a personal attack, I mean exactly that; > > > It is *ignorant* to ask ME the question you have above. > > > > > > > > > >Not > > > > intellectually, but really ? No, you didn't, right ? > > > > > > See above. > > > > > > Do you believe in enlightenment? > > > > > > > > > > Next: > > > > Because you believe in free will, do you in addition believe in > > > sin ?> > > > > > > > > > No, sin is a made up construction of religion which instills fear > > in > > > people and / or controls them to within the guidelines and > > teachings > > > of that establishment which determines what is good and what is > bad > > > and what we should or should not be doing.. > > > > > > > > > > Are you suffering from feelings of guilt and insufficency > > complex ? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > >I > > > > am asking this because those are the *natural* result when > > > believing > > > > in free will. > > > > > > > > > I cannot in anyway see how you have come to the conclusion of > > linking > > > feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex with a belief in free > > > will? > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 22, 2004 Hi again, > Then what is your message ? Do I have a message for the world? No. >God ? Depends on your definition. >Union with the Beloved ?> What is the beloved? Speaking of union with God, the beloved, etc, cosmic consciousness and so on cannot help to bring clarity, it is just pidgeon-holing spiritual adjectives. How can talking about this help? Are you a > Sufi ?> No. Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would be > a joke) ? No. > These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces since many > hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly pretented they did > it. People who meditate do both of these everyday, people are doing this all around the world right now. Stop thinking does not mean to become a zombie, it means like I said previously to stop conceptualizing and quieten the mind to find essence or what 'you' are. Know thyself does not mean to know your like / dislikes and personality etc, it means to find out WHO or WHAT 'you' are and if what you commonly think of as yourself is in fact what you truly are. Although personal introspection can be invaluable. > Have you stopped thinking or still trying ?> In order to participate in the world one must think, for a ME to interact there must be thinking. Stop thinking as I meant it means to stop conceptualizing about God, reality etc, and find out what *your* relationship to reality is. Have you found yourself > or still trying ?> This is an ignorant question for the same reasons as the other one I mentioned. You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give > advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ?> Haven't done what? What is this 'it' that gets done? Because many before > told the same ? As I said this is not new advice and I think that you will find that an understanding of mind is the *one* commonality to be found in every single spiritual or religious tradition worthy of mention. Kind Regards, Scott. > " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell others the path > to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) > > Werner > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > Hi again, > > > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter how you > twist > > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when one option is > > excluded to the choice of the other. > > > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it believes is > > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of either one > > means a contradiction. > > > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find inconsistency > > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > > > > This was advice. > > > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man in search > of > > himself and God. > > > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and find out > > WHO 'you' are. > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, but then > try > > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT FREE WILL ! > > > > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most people mean > when > > they speak of free will. > > > > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system how to > find > > a > > > better way to sell it. > > > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or otherwise, > anyone > > or anything. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Hi Scott, Have you read Anders' answer why belief in free will result in sin, feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? Great reply, isn't it ? And such simple ! I know you don't like to think but here is another riddle for you: Not *Know ´thyself* has to get the real base but *Don't know thyself*. Why ? Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi again, > > > Then what is your message ? > > Do I have a message for the world? > > No. > > > >God ? > > > Depends on your definition. > > > >Union with the Beloved ?> > > > What is the beloved? > > Speaking of union with God, the beloved, etc, cosmic consciousness > and so on cannot help to bring clarity, it is just pidgeon-holing > spiritual adjectives. How can talking about this help? > > > Are you a > > Sufi ?> > > No. > > Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would be > > a joke) ? > > No. > > > > These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces since many > > hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly pretented they did > > it. > > People who meditate do both of these everyday, people are doing this > all around the world right now. > > Stop thinking does not mean to become a zombie, it means like I said > previously to stop conceptualizing and quieten the mind to find > essence or what 'you' are. > > Know thyself does not mean to know your like / dislikes and > personality etc, it means to find out WHO or WHAT 'you' are and if > what you commonly think of as yourself is in fact what you truly are. > > Although personal introspection can be invaluable. > > > > > Have you stopped thinking or still trying ?> > > In order to participate in the world one must think, for a ME to > interact there must be thinking. Stop thinking as I meant it means to > stop conceptualizing about God, reality etc, and find out what *your* > relationship to reality is. > > > Have you found yourself > > or still trying ?> > > This is an ignorant question for the same reasons as the other one I > mentioned. > > > You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give > > advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ?> > > > Haven't done what? What is this 'it' that gets done? > > > Because many before > > told the same ? > > > As I said this is not new advice and I think that you will find that > an understanding of mind is the *one* commonality to be found in > every single spiritual or religious tradition worthy of mention. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell others the path > > to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter how you > > twist > > > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > > > > > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > > > > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when one option > is > > > excluded to the choice of the other. > > > > > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it believes is > > > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of either one > > > means a contradiction. > > > > > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find > inconsistency > > > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > > > > > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > > > > > > > This was advice. > > > > > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man in search > > of > > > himself and God. > > > > > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and find out > > > WHO 'you' are. > > > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, but then > > try > > > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT FREE > WILL ! > > > > > > > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most people mean > > when > > > they speak of free will. > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system how to > > find > > > a > > > > better way to sell it. > > > > > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or otherwise, > > anyone > > > or anything. > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Hi again, > Have you read Anders' answer why belief in free will result in sin, > feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? Great reply, isn't it ? > And such simple ! He has not answered your assertions that a belief in free will results in feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex. I have included his answer below and my response to it also; <As long as you believe that you can do anything wrong, then the shadow of sin will be hovering over you - and in you - all day long> This is not about 'right' and 'wrong' as in the concept of sin with subsequent punishment. <And personal free will means that you *can* do something wrong.> <I like to use this hellish scenario: <Not even God wants to have free will. Why? Because being all powerful, God could will itself into an infinite nightmare.> You have just created an entity called God, then given him the attribute of all power. Does such an entity exist outside of your minds conceptualization? This is the same as I was saying with your notion about fear causing a ME to be seperate, the *initial* assumption is *itself* an invention. This incorrect initial assumption is then used to further perpetuate more incorrect guesses, like for instance saying that fear causes a ME to be seperate and then finding ways to avoid fear or alleviate fear SO that a ME can be dissolved or that there can be no seperation. Fear was never in the beginning the cause of seperation, it was simply a guess about what a ME sought to seek in explanation for a belief it held. Creating an all powerful entity called God above, giving it absolute power and then suggesting what it would, could or shouldn't do is the same thing. The other point is that you have used the word 'God' on some occasions to mean the whole ( in which case will does not apply ) and in the case above as being a seperate entity capable of willing. <And if that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own free will.> You have created God and are now telling him how he behaves. This is the same as writing a fairy tale and saying how the actors should or would behave. <Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two.> Who is this 'God' that you are referring to? See above. > I know you don't like to think but here is another riddle for you: > Not *Know ´thyself* has to get the real base but *Don't know > thyself*. Why ? What is 'self' you are referring to? Kind Regards, Scott > Werner > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > Then what is your message ? > > > > Do I have a message for the world? > > > > No. > > > > > > >God ? > > > > > > Depends on your definition. > > > > > > >Union with the Beloved ?> > > > > > > What is the beloved? > > > > Speaking of union with God, the beloved, etc, cosmic consciousness > > and so on cannot help to bring clarity, it is just pidgeon-holing > > spiritual adjectives. How can talking about this help? > > > > > > Are you a > > > Sufi ?> > > > > No. > > > > Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would be > > > a joke) ? > > > > No. > > > > > > > These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces since > many > > > hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly pretented they > did > > > it. > > > > People who meditate do both of these everyday, people are doing > this > > all around the world right now. > > > > Stop thinking does not mean to become a zombie, it means like I > said > > previously to stop conceptualizing and quieten the mind to find > > essence or what 'you' are. > > > > Know thyself does not mean to know your like / dislikes and > > personality etc, it means to find out WHO or WHAT 'you' are and if > > what you commonly think of as yourself is in fact what you truly > are. > > > > Although personal introspection can be invaluable. > > > > > > > > > Have you stopped thinking or still trying ?> > > > > In order to participate in the world one must think, for a ME to > > interact there must be thinking. Stop thinking as I meant it means > to > > stop conceptualizing about God, reality etc, and find out what > *your* > > relationship to reality is. > > > > > > Have you found yourself > > > or still trying ?> > > > > This is an ignorant question for the same reasons as the other one > I > > mentioned. > > > > > > You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give > > > advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ?> > > > > > > Haven't done what? What is this 'it' that gets done? > > > > > > Because many before > > > told the same ? > > > > > > As I said this is not new advice and I think that you will find > that > > an understanding of mind is the *one* commonality to be found in > > every single spiritual or religious tradition worthy of mention. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell others the > path > > > to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter how > you > > > twist > > > > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > > > > > > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when one option > > is > > > > excluded to the choice of the other. > > > > > > > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it believes > is > > > > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of either > one > > > > means a contradiction. > > > > > > > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find > > inconsistency > > > > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > > > > > > > > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > > > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > > > > > > > > > > This was advice. > > > > > > > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man in > search > > > of > > > > himself and God. > > > > > > > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and find out > > > > WHO 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, but > then > > > try > > > > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT FREE > > WILL ! > > > > > > > > > > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most people > mean > > > when > > > > they speak of free will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system how > to > > > find > > > > a > > > > > better way to sell it. > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or otherwise, > > > anyone > > > > or anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Hi Scott, Sorry, I cannot discuss Anders' views, you have to address himself. Werner Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > Have you read Anders' answer why belief in free will result in sin, > > feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? Great reply, isn't it ? > > And such simple ! > > He has not answered your assertions that a belief in free will > results in feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex. > > I have included his answer below and my response to it also; > > > <As long as you believe that you can do anything wrong, then the > shadow of sin will be hovering over you - and in you - all day long> > > > This is not about 'right' and 'wrong' as in the concept of sin with > subsequent punishment. > > > <And personal free will means that you *can* do something wrong.> > > > > > <I like to use this hellish scenario: > <Not even God wants to have free will. Why? Because being all > powerful, God could will itself into an infinite nightmare.> > > > You have just created an entity called God, then given him the > attribute of all power. > Does such an entity exist outside of your minds conceptualization? > > This is the same as I was saying with your notion about fear causing > a ME to be seperate, the *initial* assumption is *itself* an > invention. > > This incorrect initial assumption is then used to further perpetuate > more incorrect guesses, like for instance saying that fear causes a > ME to be seperate and then finding ways to avoid fear or alleviate > fear SO that a ME can be dissolved or that there can be no seperation. > > Fear was never in the beginning the cause of seperation, it was > simply a guess about what a ME sought to seek in explanation for a > belief it held. > > Creating an all powerful entity called God above, giving it absolute > power and then suggesting what it would, could or shouldn't do is the > same thing. > > The other point is that you have used the word 'God' on some > occasions to mean the whole ( in which case will does not apply ) and > in the case above as being a seperate entity capable of willing. > > > > > <And if > that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own free > will.> > > > You have created God and are now telling him how he behaves. > This is the same as writing a fairy tale and saying how the actors > should or would behave. > > > <Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two.> > > Who is this 'God' that you are referring to? See above. > > > > I know you don't like to think but here is another riddle for you: > > Not *Know ´thyself* has to get the real base but *Don't know > > thyself*. Why ? > > > What is 'self' you are referring to? > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > Then what is your message ? > > > > > > Do I have a message for the world? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > >God ? > > > > > > > > > Depends on your definition. > > > > > > > > > >Union with the Beloved ?> > > > > > > > > > What is the beloved? > > > > > > Speaking of union with God, the beloved, etc, cosmic > consciousness > > > and so on cannot help to bring clarity, it is just pidgeon- holing > > > spiritual adjectives. How can talking about this help? > > > > > > > > > Are you a > > > > Sufi ?> > > > > > > No. > > > > > > Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would be > > > > a joke) ? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces since > > many > > > > hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly pretented > they > > did > > > > it. > > > > > > People who meditate do both of these everyday, people are doing > > this > > > all around the world right now. > > > > > > Stop thinking does not mean to become a zombie, it means like I > > said > > > previously to stop conceptualizing and quieten the mind to find > > > essence or what 'you' are. > > > > > > Know thyself does not mean to know your like / dislikes and > > > personality etc, it means to find out WHO or WHAT 'you' are and > if > > > what you commonly think of as yourself is in fact what you truly > > are. > > > > > > Although personal introspection can be invaluable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you stopped thinking or still trying ?> > > > > > > In order to participate in the world one must think, for a ME to > > > interact there must be thinking. Stop thinking as I meant it > means > > to > > > stop conceptualizing about God, reality etc, and find out what > > *your* > > > relationship to reality is. > > > > > > > > > Have you found yourself > > > > or still trying ?> > > > > > > This is an ignorant question for the same reasons as the other > one > > I > > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > > You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give > > > > advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ?> > > > > > > > > > Haven't done what? What is this 'it' that gets done? > > > > > > > > > Because many before > > > > told the same ? > > > > > > > > > As I said this is not new advice and I think that you will find > > that > > > an understanding of mind is the *one* commonality to be found in > > > every single spiritual or religious tradition worthy of mention. > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell others the > > path > > > > to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter how > > you > > > > twist > > > > > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > > > > > > > > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when one > option > > > is > > > > > excluded to the choice of the other. > > > > > > > > > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it believes > > is > > > > > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of either > > one > > > > > means a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find > > > inconsistency > > > > > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > > > > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was advice. > > > > > > > > > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man in > > search > > > > of > > > > > himself and God. > > > > > > > > > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and find out > > > > > WHO 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, but > > then > > > > try > > > > > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT FREE > > > WILL ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most people > > mean > > > > when > > > > > they speak of free will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system how > > to > > > > find > > > > > a > > > > > > better way to sell it. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or otherwise, > > > > anyone > > > > > or anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Hi again, > Sorry, I cannot discuss Anders' views, you have to address himself. Why not? This is a forum, and you have already commented on material he has spoken about in your email to me and in your emails to him previously. Kind Regards, Scott. > Werner > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > Have you read Anders' answer why belief in free will result in > sin, > > > feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? Great reply, isn't > it ? > > > And such simple ! > > > > He has not answered your assertions that a belief in free will > > results in feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex. > > > > I have included his answer below and my response to it also; > > > > > > <As long as you believe that you can do anything wrong, then the > > shadow of sin will be hovering over you - and in you - all day long> > > > > > > This is not about 'right' and 'wrong' as in the concept of sin with > > subsequent punishment. > > > > > > <And personal free will means that you *can* do something wrong.> > > > > > > > > > > <I like to use this hellish scenario: > > <Not even God wants to have free will. Why? Because being all > > powerful, God could will itself into an infinite nightmare.> > > > > > > You have just created an entity called God, then given him the > > attribute of all power. > > Does such an entity exist outside of your minds conceptualization? > > > > This is the same as I was saying with your notion about fear > causing > > a ME to be seperate, the *initial* assumption is *itself* an > > invention. > > > > This incorrect initial assumption is then used to further > perpetuate > > more incorrect guesses, like for instance saying that fear causes a > > ME to be seperate and then finding ways to avoid fear or alleviate > > fear SO that a ME can be dissolved or that there can be no > seperation. > > > > Fear was never in the beginning the cause of seperation, it was > > simply a guess about what a ME sought to seek in explanation for a > > belief it held. > > > > Creating an all powerful entity called God above, giving it > absolute > > power and then suggesting what it would, could or shouldn't do is > the > > same thing. > > > > The other point is that you have used the word 'God' on some > > occasions to mean the whole ( in which case will does not apply ) > and > > in the case above as being a seperate entity capable of willing. > > > > > > > > > > <And if > > that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own free > > will.> > > > > > > You have created God and are now telling him how he behaves. > > This is the same as writing a fairy tale and saying how the actors > > should or would behave. > > > > > > <Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two.> > > > > Who is this 'God' that you are referring to? See above. > > > > > > > I know you don't like to think but here is another riddle for you: > > > Not *Know ´thyself* has to get the real base but *Don't know > > > thyself*. Why ? > > > > > > What is 'self' you are referring to? > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > Then what is your message ? > > > > > > > > Do I have a message for the world? > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > >God ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on your definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Union with the Beloved ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the beloved? > > > > > > > > Speaking of union with God, the beloved, etc, cosmic > > consciousness > > > > and so on cannot help to bring clarity, it is just pidgeon- > holing > > > > spiritual adjectives. How can talking about this help? > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you a > > > > > Sufi ?> > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would be > > > > > a joke) ? > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces > since > > > many > > > > > hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly pretented > > they > > > did > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > People who meditate do both of these everyday, people are doing > > > this > > > > all around the world right now. > > > > > > > > Stop thinking does not mean to become a zombie, it means like I > > > said > > > > previously to stop conceptualizing and quieten the mind to find > > > > essence or what 'you' are. > > > > > > > > Know thyself does not mean to know your like / dislikes and > > > > personality etc, it means to find out WHO or WHAT 'you' are and > > if > > > > what you commonly think of as yourself is in fact what you > truly > > > are. > > > > > > > > Although personal introspection can be invaluable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you stopped thinking or still trying ?> > > > > > > > > In order to participate in the world one must think, for a ME > to > > > > interact there must be thinking. Stop thinking as I meant it > > means > > > to > > > > stop conceptualizing about God, reality etc, and find out what > > > *your* > > > > relationship to reality is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you found yourself > > > > > or still trying ?> > > > > > > > > This is an ignorant question for the same reasons as the other > > one > > > I > > > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give > > > > > advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > Haven't done what? What is this 'it' that gets done? > > > > > > > > > > > > Because many before > > > > > told the same ? > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said this is not new advice and I think that you will find > > > that > > > > an understanding of mind is the *one* commonality to be found > in > > > > every single spiritual or religious tradition worthy of mention. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > > > > " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell others > the > > > path > > > > > to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter > how > > > you > > > > > twist > > > > > > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > > > > > > > > > > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when one > > option > > > > is > > > > > > excluded to the choice of the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it > believes > > > is > > > > > > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of > either > > > one > > > > > > means a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find > > > > inconsistency > > > > > > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > > > > > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was advice. > > > > > > > > > > > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man in > > > search > > > > > of > > > > > > himself and God. > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and find > out > > > > > > WHO 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, > but > > > then > > > > > try > > > > > > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT > FREE > > > > WILL ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most people > > > mean > > > > > when > > > > > > they speak of free will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system > how > > > to > > > > > find > > > > > > a > > > > > > > better way to sell it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or > otherwise, > > > > > anyone > > > > > > or anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Hi again, > > " Thy will be done " means God's will be done. God's will and your will > are not two. :-) What do you mean by 'God'? If you mean the unity, there is no will, and 'God' doesn't think, act or do, and so cannot be compared to the will of a ME. If you mean God as a ME then there is no 'your will' that can be used in a comparison with 'Gods will'. " From discrimination between this and that a host of demons spring forth " --- Huang Po Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
