Guest guest Report post Posted July 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > 'How shall I salute the formless Being, indivisible, auspicious > and > > > immutable, who fills all this with His self and also fills the > self > > > with His self?' > > > > The formless Being is what *is*, the manifested world is an > > differentiated view of this indivisible Being. There is no real > > division. > > > This is not the revelation of the statement. > > *Imagine that GOD as a person is the one saying the statement* Then there would be no division. > > > > > What 'object consciousness'? > > > Object consciousness is another unicorn as is the shift from it. > > > > The state where awareness is aware only of 'things' can be called > > object consciousness. > > > How many states of awareness are there? I see awareness as one, but awareness can be focused in different ways and in that sense there are an infinite number of states. > > > >This is the ordinary state of a human being> > > > What about enlightened human beings? Maybe we should see 'space consciousness' as unlimited consciousness, and 'object consciousness' as limited to only experience 'things', and object consciousness is then only a limitation of space consciousness, and not different from it. Enlightenment is the opening up of the limited and contracted 'object consciousness'. There may be a sudden shift and an opening happens, or it could be a gradual process I guess. > > > > Trapped in a cage of 'things'> > > > That human being is a 'thing' itself. Yes, from the view of object consciousness, the human being is an object. Awakening is the breaking up from this limited view into the vast expanses of infinite beingness. > > > > > > The idea of being a separate person breeds conflict> > > > > Why? > *necessarily* should this be so? > > > A limited mind cannot be entirely in synch with another limited > mind.> > > > How many minds are there? Each person has a mind 'divided' from the whole. We can say that the mind of a person is a static structure. A mind of another person has another static structure. Many parts of these structures are similar, due to common conditioning and gene history. But many parts differ between two human minds, and since they are static structures there will be friction between two sets of 'ideas'. The human mind is the One Awareness shining through a unique conditioned pattern called 'me and my story'. > > The idea that conflict follows necessarily with seperate beings is > only a belief held, saying that 'two limited minds cannot be in sync' > is a way of explaining this *belief*. This is not a belief. What do you think is the cause of war? > > The mind goes out on a limb initially to state a belief then > *further* out along the branch to explain ideas which support why the > belief is held or how that belief can be explained ( using other > beliefs ). Belief is an idea that you can not see or experience directly, but the conflict between humans is a direct observation, a fact that has nothing to do with belief. > > > > > But this limitation is only the illusion called the ego I think. > > > Could thinking ( any thinking at all ) also be a limitation, and > trying to explain self-generated beliefs even more so? > > Any thinking binds a ME. Yes, thinking is limited, and more thinking will also be limited. So, there is important to reflect on the mind in which there is direct observation, and that observation includes thinking but is not limited to it. > > > > >Curiosity will > > > > lead to a non-separate state of being I believe> > > > > > > > > > If a ME is curious a ME is bound. > > > > Curiosity will help the process of removing the ego> > > > The ego cannot be removed, nor is there a '*need*' to remove it. > The ego needs to be '*accepted*'. The ego needs to melt into oneness. > > > > Causation is changeless> > > > Causation cannot be seperated from the change happening. The change happening is not a real change. Nothing of 'substance' is being changed. Reality forever is. What is, cannot cease to be. You need to make some 'thing' cease to be in order for real change to happen. What is is, and what is is so timelessly and cannot be altered, not molded, destroyed or in any form be made into 'something else'. Nothing can be taken away from reality, and nothing can be added. Nothing can be moved from here to there. > > > <So there is no one who can do anything.> > > > DOers, seperate beings, are the only things capable of doing, God > doesn't DO. No you, no me, no God, no anyone is doing anything. > > > > Everything is already written in the stars, so to speak. > > > Do you mean pre-destined? Yes, 100%. What is cannot be altered. This, at least, is my guess at the moment. :-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 28, 2004 Hi again, > > *Imagine that GOD as a person is the one saying the statement* > > Then there would be no division. *That there is nothing that *need* be said* > > How many states of awareness are there? > > I see awareness as one, but awareness can be focused in different > ways and in that sense there are an infinite number of states. Can you 'see', count, focus, or subjectify what you call awareness ( in any way )? > > What about enlightened human beings? > > Maybe we should see 'space consciousness' as unlimited consciousness, > and 'object consciousness' as limited to only experience 'things', > and object consciousness is then only a limitation of space > consciousness, and not different from it. Who will recognize this space consciousness or object consciousness, as such? These are conceptions to explain beliefs. >Enlightenment is the > opening up of the limited and contracted 'object consciousness'. > There may be a sudden shift and an opening happens, or it could be a > gradual process I guess. Enlightenment is the biggest unicorn, going on to state what enlightenment is, then giving ideas as to how it might happen is putting a saddle on the unicorn and then riding it. >Awakening is the breaking up from this limited view into the > vast expanses of infinite beingness. Who or what has this 'limited view'? > > How many minds are there? > > Each person has a mind 'divided' from the whole. Any division is made by mind ( thought or conception ) <We can say that the > mind of a person is a static structure> A 'persons mind' is not static. The human mind is the > One Awareness shining through a unique conditioned pattern called 'me > and my story'> The 'human mind' is not awareness. > > The idea that conflict follows necessarily with seperate beings is > > only a belief held, saying that 'two limited minds cannot be in > sync' > > is a way of explaining this *belief*. > > This is not a belief> That conflict follows necessarily from the notion of seperation is *only* a belief. Conflict is a *specific* belief chosen, but seperation does not necesarily imply conflict. >What do you think is the cause of war?> Singling out a cause of war is the same thing, you cannot say that because there are two seperate nations that war is the result. There are many factors that can contribute to war. When you say that conflict is the result of seperation it is focusing on something specific, then other beliefs are invented to explain the initial belief; such as that two minds are out of sync, other concepts, guesses or assumptions such as that there *are* two minds also get included, then if one is asked about these two minds one answers questions about what makes them seperate, which is another extrapolation from a belief, and so goes on the process of vagueness, this amounts to narrating a story to explain an initial vague and specific belief. > Belief is an idea that you can not see or experience directly, but > the conflict between humans is a direct observation, a fact that has > nothing to do with belief.> Conflict does happen between seperate beings, but conflict does not necessarily arise simply because beings are seperate. > Yes, thinking is limited, and more thinking will also be limited >So, > there is important to reflect on the mind in which there is direct > observation, and that observation includes thinking but is not > limited to it. Observation or awareness is not thinking. If a ME is thinking it is bound. > > > Curiosity will help the process of removing the ego> > > > > > > The ego cannot be removed, nor is there a '*need*' to remove it. > > The ego needs to be '*accepted*'. > > The ego needs to melt into oneness. The ego does not melt away or *need* to be thought of as melting away. > > Causation cannot be seperated from the change happening. > > The change happening is not a real change> The change happening IS real change, and we are aware of it as what we call change. >Nothing of 'substance' is > being changed. Substance is changing and that substance is mind, from the physical 'upwards'. <Reality forever is> Forever implies time. 'Reality' IS *and* is NOT. <What is, cannot cease to be> What ''''is'''', has never *been*, nor can ever *become* ( anything ). To speak of things ( phenomenon ) as 'something IS' ; *Nothing IS* >What is is, and what is is so timelessly and cannot be > altered, not molded, destroyed or in any form be made into 'something > else'. If you are speaking of the whole, yes. >Nothing can be taken away from reality, and nothing can be > added> Yes. >Nothing can be moved from here to there.> Objects can be moved, from the coffee table to the sofa. > No you, no me, no God, no anyone is doing anything. You are me are DOing, so are many other different beings. God, if you mean totality cannot and does not do. > > > Everything is already written in the stars, so to speak. > > > > > > Do you mean pre-destined? > > Yes, 100%. What is cannot be altered. The future is definite, yes. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 28, 2004 Hi again, > Awareness is aware of different levels of being> And awareness discriminates between these different levels of being? but only when it > becomes aware of itself it can know itself directly. Is awareness ever not aware of itself? > > What is it that divides consciousness into space and object > > consciousness? > > It is the filtering, the narrowing down of the view that makes > consciousness experience divisions and these divisions form the > relative structure of objects. Consciousness unfiltered is space > consciousness. By the question above I meant what divides the *concept* of 'consciousness' into the *concepts* of 'subject and object consciousness' and is this division needed *other* than to explain a belief or expectation? You have explained what are 2 concepts as realities, then explained how you believe the realities of these two *concepts* manifest? > > Who is enlightened? > > It is consciousness itself that comes back into its total perspective > and not just the narrow and filtered consciousness as a person. Consciousness gets enlightened? <But I am talking about the possibility of _all_ > objects being Maya in the form of a 3D projection happening now and > _only_ now, so that there in fact never has been any Abraham Lincoln > being a conscious being> There has been an Abraham Lincoln. All objects including people exist over different levels of mind / mental matter. >How can Abraham Lincoln be conscious if he > is *dead*? Abraham Lincoln cannot be conscious or described as being conscious if he is dead. <I am saying that there never has been a past, that the > past is 'created' now, only now. How can Abraham Lincoln be a > conscious person if now is the only 'time' he has existed? There has been a past and an Abraham Lincoln. *Now* as you are speaking of it is *not* a 'moment in time' and not a quantitative amount that phenomenon like Abraham Lincoln can exist in. Similarly, the real world has no > substance. What is substance? Substance is 'mind'. >We can say that the stone in the dream > is an object, but it is just a thought pattern> A stone is not a thought pattern. A stone or any physical thing exists over different levels of mental substance, the physical expression being the 'end result of the manifestation'. Similarly, the whole > world nay 'only' be a thought pattern. The whole IS mind. > > It took a ME to say 'I and my father are one' > > Yes, Jesus was a person, but he was enlightened so the One > Consciousness flowed freely from 'him'. Jesus was not enlightened, Jesus was a ME. > > We do have control over our thoughts and feelings, it is a part of > > what makes a ME what it is. > > Hehe. Good luck with your control. How carefully have you examined your thoughts? The difference between mindfulness and ordinary mind is like the difference between reactive / instinctual behaviour and crystal clear awareness; sometimes the difference between an angry chimp and a wise sage. We do have the power to change thoughts *as* they arise and also let them fall off or away before they do damage or carry on to something else. In the book I recommended there are wonderful examples, but more fruitful is to practice mindfulness and discover these things for yourself then read the book. > > They are not 2 TO be seperate, they are one thing that gets divided > > into two and then one choice selected to the *exclusion* of the > other. > > Even the divison is an illusion. The division is only split by mind. It is one thing only. > > What is the speed of time now? > > Ask the people at Greenwich, and ask if they can speed up time by > using personal free will> The people at Greenwich are not creating time. When a being wills things change, and all change IS time. Can material stuff be transported in > different speeds than regulated by physical laws?> It is the other way around, physical stuff, phenomenon changing is time, time is not something that is available to objects. >If no, then what > then can free will do? Any change is time, when a being wills change occurrs this change itself is time and times arrows. <According to me the speed of time is infinite,> How are you measuring time? > there are and infinite number of 'points' of Totality experienced by > a person every 'second'> What is a point that is being experienced? Or what is another way of expressing this? > > Are you and me observation points? > > Yes! No. You and me are not observation points. Where is the Observer? >Think of your Self as pure consciousness and that this is all > there is> How can you think of yourself as pure consciousness? >This consciousness is aware of itself in every possible > configuration of itself. So the Self is the All timelessly aware of > itself as the All. The ultimately boring state. So the Self is the ALL aware of itself? So instead of a point, we might say subset. You and me are > subsets in the All> How can there be subsets in an omnipresence? But not a real subset, because a real subset > contains discrete elements, and we cannot have real discrete elements > in existence. >Something discrete means separate, and if an element > was really separate it would have no relation to anything else, and > would thus not be a part of the All. Yes, there is nothing seperate and true seperation is impossible, if impossible is a word that should be used here in this case >The All is an interconncted > wholeness> Yes, the whole is whole, and what makes the whole what it is is inter- relationships. >So I use the picture of a point instead, because a point > is not a separate element, a point is a no-thing. When you picture a point you are creating it as concept ( to explain belief ) > > What are points and how does one point lead to another? > > We can use the concept wave function instead of point, and this wave > function is in such way that it contains the entire history track for > any individual entity> How do you use a wave function? We can say that a wave > function contains an infinite number of 'points' in time and also > contain the order in which these points happen> What do you mean by points; spacial points, points in time space, or like taking an instant snapshot of everything through on-going change? A wave function is a > stupefyingly complex 'thing' because they do not only contain the > information about a person, but also information about the entire > universe experienced by this person, down to every single particle. > But a wave function is not a thing, it is rather a no-thing. We are > no-things happening now. So a wave function is not aware / sentient / conscious? > What I described above as wave functions can be called timeless > chains of points. These wave functions are already complete and they > contain all cause and effect, and all temporal ordering needed in > order to make the universe 'happen'> Is a wave function a phenomenon? >we are timeless awareness experiencing these wave > functions happening now> We are not timeless awareness. >we are timeless awareness from unique points of > views being experienced now> Again, we are not timeless awareness. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > > *Imagine that GOD as a person is the one saying the statement* > > > > Then there would be no division. > > *That there is nothing that *need* be said* > > > > > How many states of awareness are there? > > > > I see awareness as one, but awareness can be focused in different > > ways and in that sense there are an infinite number of states. > > > Can you 'see', count, focus, or subjectify what you call awareness ( > in any way )? Yes, when clarity of perception, fearlessness, and stillness/balance of mind is there, then there is pure awareness. Knowledge cannot reach this state. > > > > > What about enlightened human beings? > > > > Maybe we should see 'space consciousness' as unlimited > consciousness, > > and 'object consciousness' as limited to only experience 'things', > > and object consciousness is then only a limitation of space > > consciousness, and not different from it. > > > Who will recognize this space consciousness or object consciousness, > as such? When you experience an opening up of the mind so that what we can call the intellect is only a part of that opening and not filling the whole mind, then space consciousness is beginning to dawn upon you. > > These are conceptions to explain beliefs. I have experience openings like this myself. So for me this is more than concepts or beliefs. > > > >Enlightenment is the > > opening up of the limited and contracted 'object consciousness'. > > There may be a sudden shift and an opening happens, or it could be > a > > gradual process I guess. > > > Enlightenment is the biggest unicorn, going on to state what > enlightenment is, then giving ideas as to how it might happen > is putting a saddle on the unicorn and then riding it. Enlightenment is the recognition of the no-mind; pure awareness - awareness coming to know itself in its clear form. > > > >Awakening is the breaking up from this limited view into the > > vast expanses of infinite beingness. > > > Who or what has this 'limited view'? Normally we live with object consiousness. We rely on knowledge *about* things and events as our primary focus. This is not only a very limited view, it is also only a second-hand view of reality. We see the world *through* knowledge, *through* thinking, so there no direct perception. > > > > > How many minds are there? > > > > Each person has a mind 'divided' from the whole. > > > Any division is made by mind ( thought or conception ) Yes. > > > <We can say that the > > mind of a person is a static structure> > > > A 'persons mind' is not static. When we live through object consciousness, then we live entirely from the intellect, from thinking/feeling. The intellect is based on knowledge and experiences; on memories, and memories are always from the past, and everything from the past is now static. New memories are 'added' all the time, but at any given moment the intellect has only memories to use in order to understand what is happening. So, I should perhaps not have used the word mind as being static, but rather the content of the mind as being static. > > > The human mind is the > > One Awareness shining through a unique conditioned pattern > called 'me > > and my story'> > > > The 'human mind' is not awareness. When awareness shines on memories and sense perception, then this whole process can be called the human mind. So, the human mind is awareness + content. Or we can say that awareness at rest is pure awareness, and awareness with ripples in it is awareness with content 'in' it. > > > > > The idea that conflict follows necessarily with seperate beings > is > > > only a belief held, saying that 'two limited minds cannot be in > > sync' > > > is a way of explaining this *belief*. > > > > This is not a belief> > > That conflict follows necessarily from the notion of seperation is > *only* a belief. > Conflict is a *specific* belief chosen, but seperation does not > necesarily imply conflict. When there is harmony and balance between two separate conditioned minds, or two nation states, then there is no conflict. > > > >What do you think is the cause of war?> > > Singling out a cause of war is the same thing, you cannot say that > because there are two seperate nations that war is the result. > There are many factors that can contribute to war. When the 'ideas' held by two states are always in harmony, then there will be no war. > > When you say that conflict is the result of seperation it is focusing > on something specific, then other beliefs are invented to explain the > initial belief; such as that two minds are out of sync, other > concepts, guesses or assumptions such as that there *are* two minds > also get included, then if one is asked about these two minds one > answers questions about what makes them seperate, which is another > extrapolation from a belief, and so goes on the process of vagueness, > this amounts to narrating a story to explain an initial vague and > specific belief. The rigid structure in mind A creates " I want... " , and the rigid structure in mind B creates another " I want... " . This is ego clashing against ego, one object consciousness in conflict with another object consciousness. This conflict will always be there, because it is virtually impossible to make mind A want exactly the same thing as mind B. Only in space consciousness, in pure awareness, can mind A and mind B live without conflict, because space consciousness is a an all-encompassing consciousness. > > > > > Belief is an idea that you can not see or experience directly, but > > the conflict between humans is a direct observation, a fact that > has > > nothing to do with belief.> > > Conflict does happen between seperate beings, but conflict does not > necessarily arise simply because beings are seperate. Space consciousness is the One Consciousness, and only by melting into That will conflict cease. > > > > Yes, thinking is limited, and more thinking will also be limited > >So, > > there is important to reflect on the mind in which there is direct > > observation, and that observation includes thinking but is not > > limited to it. > > Observation or awareness is not thinking. > > If a ME is thinking it is bound. That's what I said. > > > > > > Curiosity will help the process of removing the ego> > > > > > > > > > The ego cannot be removed, nor is there a '*need*' to remove it. > > > The ego needs to be '*accepted*'. > > > > The ego needs to melt into oneness. > > The ego does not melt away or *need* to be thought of as melting away. For fear to melt away, for boredom, restlessness, hatred and shame to melt away, the ego needs to melt away. > > > > > Causation cannot be seperated from the change happening. > > > > The change happening is not a real change> > > The change happening IS real change, and we are aware of it as what > we call change. Again, I will use the picture of a DVD. This DVD contains all possibilities there is. The DVD contains change, yes, but the DVD is not changing. The DVD is a static and timeless structure, and the 'laser' shining on the DVD is awareness, but awareness does not shine on one spot on the DVD and moves to the next spot, instead awareness shines on _all_ spots on the DVD at the same time, timelessly in the now, changelessly in the now. > > > >Nothing of 'substance' is > > being changed. > > Substance is changing and that substance is mind, from the > physical 'upwards'. It could be that the mind changes, but I believe in a changeless model. > > > <Reality forever is> > > > Forever implies time. Yes, time begun *now*, and explodes into infinity, forever. > > 'Reality' IS *and* is NOT. What is is and cannot be made into what is not. > > > <What is, cannot cease to be> > > > What ''''is'''', has never *been*, nor can ever *become* ( anything ). > > To speak of things ( phenomenon ) as 'something IS' ; > > *Nothing IS* When I say " what is " , I mean what is and nothing else than that. > > > >What is is, and what is is so timelessly and cannot be > > altered, not molded, destroyed or in any form be made > into 'something > > else'. > > If you are speaking of the whole, yes. > > >Nothing can be taken away from reality, and nothing can be > > added> > > Yes. > > > >Nothing can be moved from here to there.> > > Objects can be moved, from the coffee table to the sofa. Moving a cell phone from the coffee table to the sofa happens. Think of reality as a movie already complete now, and all we are doing now is observing this 'movie' unfold. The movie is *already* 'made' and cannot be altered. > > > > No you, no me, no God, no anyone is doing anything. > > > You are me are DOing, so are many other different beings. > > God, if you mean totality cannot and does not do. Doing happens as a part of the movie of life already made. What is is. The past is, the now is, the future is, and all this is part of what is and what is is already complete *including* every doing. So, doing happens yes, but there is no *doer*, it is only pure awareness experiencing the doing as a pure changeless observer. Think of pure awareness as a film camera in a movie theatre filming the movie on the white screen (to make an illegal copy perhaps). The movie going on on the screen is the world happening (physical reality), and the film camera is pure awareness. The film camera cannot change the movie being filmed. Similarly, pure awareness cannot change what is happening. And the movie being played cannot change itself, because the move has *already* been made; the *entire* movie is already complete. Similarly, the physical world happening has *already* been 'made' - it is complete and changeless. /AL > > > > > > Everything is already written in the stars, so to speak. > > > > > > > > > Do you mean pre-destined? > > > > Yes, 100%. What is cannot be altered. > > > The future is definite, yes. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > Awareness is aware of different levels of being> > > And awareness discriminates between these different levels of being? I see awareness as the pure observer, like a film camera only observing. > > but only when it > > becomes aware of itself it can know itself directly. > > Is awareness ever not aware of itself? Awareness is always aware of itself. We can think of pure awareness as the observer and the observed as ripples in awareness. Objext consciousness is when awareness is only aware of the ripples, and space consciousness is when awareness becomes aware of itself as the total ocean of everything. > > > > > What is it that divides consciousness into space and object > > > consciousness? > > > > It is the filtering, the narrowing down of the view that makes > > consciousness experience divisions and these divisions form the > > relative structure of objects. Consciousness unfiltered is space > > consciousness. > > By the question above I meant what divides the *concept* > of 'consciousness' into the *concepts* of 'subject and object > consciousness' and is this division needed *other* than to explain a > belief or expectation? > > You have explained what are 2 concepts as realities, then explained > how you believe the realities of these two *concepts* manifest? All concepts, all forms, all seemingly divided 'stuff' are only ripples in consciousness, and consciousness is all there is. > > > > > > Who is enlightened? > > > > It is consciousness itself that comes back into its total > perspective > > and not just the narrow and filtered consciousness as a person. > > > Consciousness gets enlightened? Consciousness waking up from the dream of having been a separate individual. > > > <But I am talking about the possibility of _all_ > > objects being Maya in the form of a 3D projection happening now and > > _only_ now, so that there in fact never has been any Abraham > Lincoln > > being a conscious being> > > There has been an Abraham Lincoln. > All objects including people exist over different levels of mind / > mental matter. Yes, Abraham Lincoln is a real person, but a real person is only a ripple in consciousness. It is consciousness *itself* who is conscious, a ripple cannot be conscious. Your brain/body is not conscious. *You* are not your brain/body, you are not even your memories. You are the one consciousness. You are the One. :-) > > > >How can Abraham Lincoln be conscious if he > > is *dead*? > > Abraham Lincoln cannot be conscious or described as being conscious > if he is dead. Well, the 'past' Abraham Lincoln maybe experience himself now. What I mean is that consciousness is aware of all the past, and all the future in this very moment, and there is only one consciousness. > > > <I am saying that there never has been a past, that the > > past is 'created' now, only now. How can Abraham Lincoln be a > > conscious person if now is the only 'time' he has existed? > > There has been a past and an Abraham Lincoln. > *Now* as you are speaking of it is *not* a 'moment in time' and not a > quantitative amount that phenomenon like Abraham Lincoln can exist in. Now is a moment in time, and time begun now. In this now consciousness is experiencing your past and your future, and what you are is the experience point at Jul 28, 2004 or whatever date there is now, but this date is only for you - your *entire* life is being experienced by consciousness is this very moment, so there is a past 'you' walking around and a 'future' you walking around in this very now. > > > Similarly, the real world has no > > substance. What is substance? > > Substance is 'mind'. Ok, fair enough, in that way yes, there is substance. > > >We can say that the stone in the dream > > is an object, but it is just a thought pattern> > > A stone is not a thought pattern. A dream, is that not a thought pattern? A stone in the dream, is that stone not a part of the dream? When you wake up in the morning, can you take the stone you experienced in your dream and put in your pocket? > > A stone or any physical thing exists over different levels of mental > substance, the physical expression being the 'end result of the > manifestation'. Yes, I agree. > > > Similarly, the whole > > world nay 'only' be a thought pattern. > > The whole IS mind. Yes, everything is consciousness we could say. > > > > > It took a ME to say 'I and my father are one' > > > > Yes, Jesus was a person, but he was enlightened so the One > > Consciousness flowed freely from 'him'. > > > Jesus was not enlightened, Jesus was a ME. He dropped the ego and became enlightened. This happened as everything does: automatically. > > > > > We do have control over our thoughts and feelings, it is a part > of > > > what makes a ME what it is. > > > > Hehe. Good luck with your control. > > > How carefully have you examined your thoughts? > > The difference between mindfulness and ordinary mind is like the > difference between reactive / instinctual behaviour and crystal clear > awareness; sometimes the difference between an angry chimp and a wise > sage. > > We do have the power to change thoughts *as* they arise and also let > them fall off or away before they do damage or carry on to something > else. > > In the book I recommended there are wonderful examples, but more > fruitful is to practice mindfulness and discover these things for > yourself then read the book. Yes, I believe one can learn to alter thoughts as they arise, and I find myself doing that now and then. With practice the thought patterns can be molded, just as one can mold a lump of clay into some figure. > > > > > They are not 2 TO be seperate, they are one thing that gets > divided > > > into two and then one choice selected to the *exclusion* of the > > other. > > > > Even the divison is an illusion. > > > The division is only split by mind. It is one thing only. > > > > > What is the speed of time now? > > > > Ask the people at Greenwich, and ask if they can speed up time by > > using personal free will> > > > The people at Greenwich are not creating time. > When a being wills things change, and all change IS time. So the wind wills a leaf to fly in a certain direction? ;-) > > > Can material stuff be transported in > > different speeds than regulated by physical laws?> > > It is the other way around, physical stuff, phenomenon changing is > time, time is not something that is available to objects. Yes, that is correct, but when we look that physical laws, we see that they dictate this change, and the so called personal 'free will' cannot, it seems, alter physical laws. > > > >If no, then what > > then can free will do? > > Any change is time, when a being wills change occurrs this change > itself is time and times arrows. Yes, will and change can be seen as one and the same movement. But remember that I believe reality is changeless, so the change we see is a happening that is already written in the stars (including the so called 'free will'). > > > <According to me the speed of time is infinite,> > > > How are you measuring time? I see time as awareness being aware of itself at a certain 'point' in itself which leads changelessly to another 'point' being observed, and then to another point and so on. The 'motion' from one point to the next happens infinitely fast, but infinity is never ends, so there will be no end of 'points' being observed. This infinitely fast iteration of points is the arrow of time/change. > > > there are and infinite number of 'points' of Totality experienced > by > > a person every 'second'> > > > What is a point that is being experienced? Or what is another way of > expressing this? Think of all-there-is as a crystal ball of all possibilities there is. We can think of one possibility as a point at a certain position inside this crystal ball. The crystal ball is self aware, the crystal ball is the One Consciousness. When a certain point is observed it means that a certain *particular* and unique possibility is being observed/experienced. I as a person, Anders Lindman, is this One Consciousness now experiencing itself at a *particular* point, a unique possibility, and this possibility happens to be Anders Lindman, stardate: earth:sol:milky_way:big_bang:2004-07-28:20:55 :-) So my body, mind, memories and the world around me, _all_ of it, is just _one_ point, one possibility being experienced right _now_. Or we can see this now, my now, as a particular quantum wave/state modelled as a point in the configuration space of all possibilities, to make it sound more scientific. Or, to make it sound more spiritual: " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing but consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 > > > > > Are you and me observation points? > > > > Yes! > > No. > You and me are not observation points. > > Where is the Observer? Pure awareness is the One Observer, the witness of *everything*. " You are the one witness of everything and are always completely free. The cause of your bondage is that you see the witness as something other than this. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.7 > > > >Think of your Self as pure consciousness and that this is all > > there is> > > How can you think of yourself as pure consciousness? Think of your Self as pure consciousness, not your self which is the ego. :-) > > > >This consciousness is aware of itself in every possible > > configuration of itself. So the Self is the All timelessly aware of > > itself as the All. The ultimately boring state. > > > So the Self is the ALL aware of itself? Well, the Self is an infinite number of different view points in the All. > > > So instead of a point, we might say subset. You and me are > > subsets in the All> > > > How can there be subsets in an omnipresence? Not a real subset. See below: > > > But not a real subset, because a real subset > > contains discrete elements, and we cannot have real discrete > elements > > in existence. > >Something discrete means separate, and if an element > > was really separate it would have no relation to anything else, and > > would thus not be a part of the All. > > Yes, there is nothing seperate and true seperation is impossible, if > impossible is a word that should be used here in this case > > > >The All is an interconncted > > wholeness> > > Yes, the whole is whole, and what makes the whole what it is is inter- > relationships. > > > >So I use the picture of a point instead, because a point > > is not a separate element, a point is a no-thing. > > When you picture a point you are creating it as concept ( to explain > belief ) Yes. > > > > > What are points and how does one point lead to another? > > > > We can use the concept wave function instead of point, and this > wave > > function is in such way that it contains the entire history track > for > > any individual entity> > > > How do you use a wave function? The wave function is just a mathematical description used in for example quantum physics to model reality. > > > We can say that a wave > > function contains an infinite number of 'points' in time and also > > contain the order in which these points happen> > > What do you mean by points; spacial points, points in time space, or > like taking an instant snapshot of everything through on-going change? We can for example look at a straight line in space 1 centimeter long. This line of space has an infinite number of points. > > > A wave function is a > > stupefyingly complex 'thing' because they do not only contain the > > information about a person, but also information about the entire > > universe experienced by this person, down to every single particle. > > But a wave function is not a thing, it is rather a no-thing. We are > > no-things happening now. > > > So a wave function is not aware / sentient / conscious? We can see a wave fuction as a pattern in consciousness, and consciousness is all there is. It is consciousness that is aware, and consciousness is a wholeness, a oneness. > > > > > What I described above as wave functions can be called timeless > > chains of points. These wave functions are already complete and > they > > contain all cause and effect, and all temporal ordering needed in > > order to make the universe 'happen'> > > > Is a wave function a phenomenon? It is a happening, yes. If that's what you mean by phenomenon. > > >we are timeless awareness experiencing these wave > > functions happening now> > > We are not timeless awareness. Maybe it's better to say that we are consciousness and consciousness is all there is, and consciousness contains no real separation, it is a wholeness, a oneness. > > > >we are timeless awareness from unique points of > > views being experienced now> > > Again, we are not timeless awareness. We are the One. :-) /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 1, 2004 Hi again, > > Can you 'see', count, focus, or subjectify what you call awareness > ( > > in any way )? > > Yes> No, 'awareness' cannot be counted, subjectified, or focused. >when clarity of perception, fearlessness, and stillness/balance > of mind is there, then there is pure awareness. What about if there is no clarity of perception, there is fear, there is unbalance and so on, is there still awareness? This is the problem in stating that something is so by fitting beliefs to *expectations*. Saying that if clarity of perception, fearlessness, stillness or balance is present > then there IS pure awareness, is fitting or selecting a solution to an expected *belief*. Does there need to be striving for this revealing, is this revealing a goal TO be strived for? Is this revealing even something 'true', that happens, outside of your expectation? And is not this striving for something to be acheived or realized only an expectation of what a ME thinks will happen to IT? Any goal, any striving, anything to accomplish is invented by a ME and that ME is bound ( by it ). >Knowledge cannot > reach this state. Knowledge, intellect and thinking are a part of the apparent phenomenon, 'like' anything else. > > Who will recognize this space consciousness or object > consciousness, > > as such? > > When you experience an opening up of the mind so that what we can > call the intellect is only a part of that opening and not filling the > whole mind, then space consciousness is beginning to dawn upon you. Have you experienced what *you* call space consciousness and how do you recognize this space consciousness as that which you call it? Does this thing that you term space consciousness happen in levels where it begins to dawn? > > These are conceptions to explain beliefs. > > I have experience openings like this myself. So for me this is more > than concepts or beliefs. If *you* ( a ME ) are claiming you have experienced anything or realized something then it is mental phenomenon of a ME and illusionary. Saying that 'I have realized' or have begun to realize and so on, is a ME bound to expectation of achieving something or some state. Even going on to say that one is closer to this expected state or further from this expected state binds the ME that thinks so. > > Enlightenment is the biggest unicorn, going on to state what > > enlightenment is, then giving ideas as to how it might happen > > is putting a saddle on the unicorn and then riding it. > > Enlightenment is the recognition of the no-mind; pure awareness - > awareness coming to know itself in its clear form. How many forms does awareness have? This is an idea about what the concept of enlightenment is to you, and what you conceive happens during the process of your concept of enlightenment which also includes what you think of the concept of no- mind and what it is. If enlightenment is a goal to be reached, if there is something to be attained then a ME is bound. > > Who or what has this 'limited view'? >We rely on knowledge > *about* things and events as our primary focus> Yes, and this also is a part of our natural participation with the world, as what we are, MEs. >This is not only a > very limited view, it is also only a second-hand view of reality> Yes, it is very limited. >We > see the world *through* knowledge, *through* thinking, so there no > direct perception. Yes, and we see the world through a lot more than that too, it is a very very muddy lens that one looks through! **We subjectify the whole even as 'the thought arises'** > > A 'persons mind' is not static. > New memories > are 'added' all the time, but at any given moment the intellect has > only memories to use in order to understand what is happening. So, I > should perhaps not have used the word mind as being static, but > rather the content of the mind as being static. Limited maybe. You would have heard of 'taming the monkey mind'. The mind of someone who doesn't, can't or hasn't watched 'their own mind' or doesn't understand mind is like this. Empty puppet bodies dragged to and fro by thoughts, reactions, conditioning and thinking. It is like the difference between being on autopilot and flying the plane yourself. > > The 'human mind' is not awareness. > > When awareness shines on memories and sense perception, then this > whole process can be called the human mind. So, the human mind is > awareness + content. Or we can say that awareness at rest is pure > awareness, and awareness with ripples in it is awareness with > content 'in' it. The human mind is mental matter, thoughts and emotions, it is an 'object'. What we call awareness is a concept itself with absolutely no human- ness about it whatsoever. > > That conflict follows necessarily from the notion of seperation is > > *only* a belief. > > Conflict is a *specific* belief chosen, but seperation does not > > necesarily imply conflict. > > When there is harmony and balance between two separate conditioned > minds, or two nation states, then there is no conflict. When there is harmony yes there is no conflict, by definition, when there is peace there is no war. Does this seperation necessarily imply war? This was my point. Saying that conflict necessarily follows seperation is only a belief. > > Singling out a cause of war is the same thing, you cannot say that > > because there are two seperate nations that war is the result. > > There are many factors that can contribute to war. > > When the 'ideas' held by two states are always in harmony, then there > will be no war. This is different from saying that conflict necessarily follows seperation. There are many factors that contribute to war and peace and seperation does not *imply* war. It is not correct to say that seperation *necessarily* implies conflict, the belief that seperation implies conflict is a narrowly selected belief. The same thing here as I was saying about fear and a ME dissolving. > The rigid structure in mind A creates " I want... " , and the rigid > structure in mind B creates another " I want... " . This is ego clashing > against ego, one object consciousness in conflict with another object > consciousness. There is no object consciousness clashing with another object consciousness. This is conceptualization about a process trying to be explained. This conflict will always be there, because it is > virtually impossible to make mind A want exactly the same thing as > mind B> Is wanting the reason conflict arises? Again, this is a very narrowly *selected assumption*. Conflict can arise for many reasons. There is no benefit in selecting a narrow specific belief then attributing that belief as the sole cause of something happening. Only in space consciousness, in pure awareness, can mind A > and mind B live without conflict, because space consciousness is a an > all-encompassing consciousness. How many minds are there? In your conception of space consciousness you are conceiving of 2 seperate minds living in it without conflict? *It is only mind that is dividing and making 2 minds* > then merging them to have no conflict in pure awareness. This is no different to narrating a story as explanations are given as the story unfolds to accomodate initial beliefs. It is only assumptions or beliefs of what expectations a ME has of 'what will happen' ( to it ) or something that it has conceptualized as space consciousness. > > > Belief is an idea that you can not see or experience directly, > but > > > the conflict between humans is a direct observation, a fact that > > has > > > nothing to do with belief.> > > > > Conflict does happen between seperate beings, but conflict does not > > necessarily arise simply because beings are seperate. > > Space consciousness is the One Consciousness, and only by melting > into That will conflict cease. Conflict is just one thing you have chosen to apply to the notion of seperateness, you could have chosen from a myriad of things even the notion of love and applied that to seperateness, saying that love occurrs because of seperation. The minute one starts to *provide* explanations for why things like conflict arise, one then find reasons why that must be so and the vagueness of more asumptions increase to explain previous ones. If the first is only guessing what can be gained by more thinking, except the further binding of a ME. What needs to or can melt? > > > > > Curiosity will help the process of removing the ego> > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego cannot be removed, nor is there a '*need*' to remove it. > > > > The ego needs to be '*accepted*'. > > > > > > The ego needs to melt into oneness. > > > > The ego does not melt away or *need* to be thought of as melting > away. > > For fear to melt away, for boredom, restlessness, hatred and shame to > melt away, the ego needs to melt away. No, the ego never melts away, and these thoughts and the emotions above that they relate to are only thoughts of a ME including ego. It is also possible for a ME to not experience these emotions, would it then be necessary to get rid of the ego or to think to have it removed? Getting rid of an ego is a panacea for ego problems like fear, boredom, hatred etc, but the ego cannot be gotten rid of, nor does the thought of trying to get rid of it *have* to occurr. If you are capable of fear then why is this so, if you are capable of hate then why since you are also capable of love. If you examine your mind and find out why these thoughts and feelings arise, why these thoughts and emotions arise instead of those feelings you are associating with what you seek to experience ( for *whatever* reason ) then you can change your thinking and emotions. If thoughts are arising that you don't deem healthy then isn't the first step thorough introspection to find out why these thoughts arise? You cannot throw away the mechanism that shows both love and hate *because* you don't like hate, you must transform hate into love. > > > > Causation cannot be seperated from the change happening. > > > > > > The change happening is not a real change> > > > > The change happening IS real change, and we are aware of it as what > > we call change. > > Again, I will use the picture of a DVD. This DVD contains all > possibilities there is. The DVD contains change, yes, but the DVD is > not changing> The unity / whole contains all possibilities, choices, who, what, when, who, where etc and the unity does not DO. The DVD is a static and timeless structure, and > the 'laser' shining on the DVD is awareness, but awareness does not > shine on one spot on the DVD and moves to the next spot, instead > awareness shines on _all_ spots on the DVD at the same time, > timelessly in the now, changelessly in the now. The whole is being enacted NOW, and the whole accomodates all choices and all possibilities occuring now. The whole is not a single one thing that can be thought of as pre- recorded or existing in a definite unchanging single form where choice and possibility are voided. The whole accomodates ALL choice and possibility, and there is no contradiction between a choice a being makes and the enacting of the whole NOW. > > >Nothing of 'substance' is > > > being changed. > > > > Substance is changing and that substance is mind, from the > > physical 'upwards'. > > It could be that the mind changes, but I believe in a changeless > model. There need not be contradiction. Mind changes, mind is phenomenon. Look in at your thoughts and out at the world, mental substance is moving ( in both cases ). > > <Reality forever is> > > > > > > Forever implies time. > > Yes, time begun *now*, and explodes into infinity, forever. The now that you are speaking of *is not a moment IN time* Forever is IN time, it implies time 'going on', the continuing presence of time. NOW has nothing at all to do with time. > > 'Reality' IS *and* is NOT. > > What is is and cannot be made into what is not. What IS? When we say that something is, it is only a phenomenal or existence reality that we can refer to, yet all phenomenon are unreal. When we speak of something, reality being or reality IS, then we must say *Nothing IS*, meaning phenomenon and things that makes up reality, the cosmos, nothing is inherently real of itself. The immutable, eternal, thusness is not a *thing* it cannot be described as belonging to any realm of reality, it is NOT. It is the Ayn of the Kabbalists, the void of the Buddhists, Sunyata, The Sufis fana 'l fana, Lao Tze's 'void filled to the brim'. What is, is NOTHING IS, i.e no thing has any independent real existence. The immutable, unchanging REALity is NOT because it is no such 'thing', we can call it thusness, but it has no reality that we can PhenomenonLIZE. Saying what is IS, is a self contradiction as we understand and use language. Is it any wonder all those Zen fellows used to hit people with sticks as soon as they opened their mouths ! > > <What is, cannot cease to be> > > > > > > What ''''is'''', has never *been*, nor can ever *become* ( > anything ). > > > > To speak of things ( phenomenon ) as 'something IS' ; > > > > *Nothing IS* > > When I say " what is " , I mean what is and nothing else than that. When you say what is? What do you mean? If you mean phenomenon; nothing IS. If you mean the immutable *unknowable*, it cannot be described as something and it is NOT. > > Objects can be moved, from the coffee table to the sofa. > > Moving a cell phone from the coffee table to the sofa happens. Think > of reality as a movie already complete now, and all we are doing now > is observing this 'movie' unfold. The movie is *already* 'made' and > cannot be altered. The 'movie' is not already pre-recorded. The movie is being enacted NOW, and includes all choices and possibilities. > > > No you, no me, no God, no anyone is doing anything. > > > > > > You are me are DOing, so are many other different beings. > > > > God, if you mean totality cannot and does not do. > > Doing happens as a part of the movie of life already made> Doing happens live as it arises within the whole, any doing or change creates time ( the past ). We cannot act from the future. What is > is. The past is, the now is, the future is, and all this is part of > what is and what is is already complete *including* every doing. Every possibility is fully encompassed yes. So, > doing happens yes, but there is no *doer*, it is only pure awareness > experiencing the doing as a pure changeless observer. There are DOers. *The whole unity does not make itself what it is* Nor does it *act on itself*, think or DO. >Similarly, the physical world happening has *already* > been 'made' - it is complete and changeless. If you mean as a pre-recorded fixed thing that cannot be changed to include possibility within time change from moment to moment then no. If you mean as something which encompasses all possibilities within time then yes. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > Can you 'see', count, focus, or subjectify what you call > awareness > > ( > > > in any way )? > > > > Yes> > > No, 'awareness' cannot be counted, subjectified, or focused. When we are thinking, awarenss is focused on inner thoughts, and when we look at something, then awareness is focused on what is seen. > > > >when clarity of perception, fearlessness, and stillness/balance > > of mind is there, then there is pure awareness. > > > What about if there is no clarity of perception, there is fear, there > is unbalance and so on, is there still awareness? Yes, awareness of a fragmented process we usually call the ego. Enlightenment is simply awareness being liberated from the ego cage. > > This is the problem in stating that something is so by fitting > beliefs to *expectations*. > > Saying that if clarity of perception, fearlessness, stillness or > balance is present > then there IS pure awareness, is fitting or > selecting a solution to an expected *belief*. > > Does there need to be striving for this revealing, is this revealing > a goal TO be strived for? > Is this revealing even something 'true', that happens, outside of > your expectation? > And is not this striving for something to be acheived or realized > only an expectation of what a ME thinks will happen to IT? > > Any goal, any striving, anything to accomplish is invented by a ME > and that ME is bound ( by it ). Everything just happens. Striving is a part of what is happening. No one has any volition. Everybody *do* have volition, but this volition is what is happening and couldn't be otherwise. Everything is already written in the stars. A person is completely powerless. Even the (ego) idea, the firm belief of having some power is not in a person's power to decide about. > > > > >Knowledge cannot > > reach this state. > > Knowledge, intellect and thinking are a part of the apparent > phenomenon, 'like' anything else. Yes, knowledge may be a part of reaching this state. > > > > > Who will recognize this space consciousness or object > > consciousness, > > > as such? > > > > When you experience an opening up of the mind so that what we can > > call the intellect is only a part of that opening and not filling > the > > whole mind, then space consciousness is beginning to dawn upon you. > > > Have you experienced what *you* call space consciousness and how do > you recognize this space consciousness as that which you call it? > Does this thing that you term space consciousness happen in levels > where it begins to dawn? However, I have seen that there are states where my perception becomes clearer and thinking fades away. And when this happens, there is awareness of something more than just objects and thoughts. > > > > > These are conceptions to explain beliefs. > > > > I have experience openings like this myself. So for me this is more > > than concepts or beliefs. > > > If *you* ( a ME ) are claiming you have experienced anything or > realized something then it is mental phenomenon of a ME and > illusionary. In the sense that all memories are not reality happening now, yes. > > Saying that 'I have realized' or have begun to realize and so on, is > a ME bound to expectation of achieving something or some state. > Even going on to say that one is closer to this expected state or > further from this expected state binds the ME that thinks so. One has to observe all that is happening, even oneself an an observer. > > > > > Enlightenment is the biggest unicorn, going on to state what > > > enlightenment is, then giving ideas as to how it might happen > > > is putting a saddle on the unicorn and then riding it. > > > > Enlightenment is the recognition of the no-mind; pure awareness - > > awareness coming to know itself in its clear form. > > How many forms does awareness have? Awareness can be trapped in the cage of the ego. And awareness can be free from that prison. Awareness is simply awareness, but there can be shallow and fragmented awareness, and there can be liberated, deep and non-fragmented awareness. > > This is an idea about what the concept of enlightenment is to you, > and what you conceive happens during the process of your concept of > enlightenment which also includes what you think of the concept of no- > mind and what it is. > If enlightenment is a goal to be reached, if there is something to be > attained then a ME is bound. Enlightenment is a goal, and when the seeking stops naturally, then the goal is near I believe. I think everything is predetermined to happen exactly as things happen. So I believe one just have to enjoy/endure the ride. Seeking will happen or stop according to God's plan. > > > > > Who or what has this 'limited view'? > > > >We rely on knowledge > > *about* things and events as our primary focus> > > Yes, and this also is a part of our natural participation with the > world, as what we are, MEs. > > > >This is not only a > > very limited view, it is also only a second-hand view of reality> > > Yes, it is very limited. > > > >We > > see the world *through* knowledge, *through* thinking, so there no > > direct perception. > > > Yes, and we see the world through a lot more than that too, it is a > very very muddy lens that one looks through! > > **We subjectify the whole even as 'the thought arises'** > > > > > A 'persons mind' is not static. > > > New memories > > are 'added' all the time, but at any given moment the intellect has > > only memories to use in order to understand what is happening. So, > I > > should perhaps not have used the word mind as being static, but > > rather the content of the mind as being static. > > Limited maybe. > > You would have heard of 'taming the monkey mind'. > The mind of someone who doesn't, can't or hasn't watched 'their own > mind' or doesn't understand mind is like this. > Empty puppet bodies dragged to and fro by thoughts, reactions, > conditioning and thinking. > It is like the difference between being on autopilot and flying the > plane yourself. I think there is (I) autopilot as an ego, (II) flying the plane yourself, and (III) autopilot as the One Self (as in the movie The Last Samuraj when Tom Cruise learned to handle the sword with a state of no-mind; first he was using his mind to handle the sword but was beaten in training all the time, and it was not until he learned to free his mind from handling the sword himself that he could match the competitor). Eckhart Tolle describes a state where we know what to do beyond thinking, a form of direct knowing. > > > > > The 'human mind' is not awareness. > > > > When awareness shines on memories and sense perception, then this > > whole process can be called the human mind. So, the human mind is > > awareness + content. Or we can say that awareness at rest is pure > > awareness, and awareness with ripples in it is awareness with > > content 'in' it. > > > The human mind is mental matter, thoughts and emotions, it is > an 'object'. > What we call awareness is a concept itself with absolutely no human- > ness about it whatsoever. We as humans are self-aware, and that is a direct evidence for awareness, not as a concept, but as a direct fact, more direct than any memory could ever be. > > > > > That conflict follows necessarily from the notion of seperation > is > > > *only* a belief. > > > Conflict is a *specific* belief chosen, but seperation does not > > > necesarily imply conflict. > > > > When there is harmony and balance between two separate conditioned > > minds, or two nation states, then there is no conflict. > > > When there is harmony yes there is no conflict, by definition, when > there is peace there is no war. > > Does this seperation necessarily imply war? This was my point. > > Saying that conflict necessarily follows seperation is only a belief. There can be separation and no conflict only when there is One Will. > > > > > Singling out a cause of war is the same thing, you cannot say > that > > > because there are two seperate nations that war is the result. > > > There are many factors that can contribute to war. > > > > When the 'ideas' held by two states are always in harmony, then > there > > will be no war. > > > This is different from saying that conflict necessarily follows > seperation. > There are many factors that contribute to war and peace and > seperation does not *imply* war. > > It is not correct to say that seperation *necessarily* implies > conflict, the belief that seperation implies conflict is a narrowly > selected belief. All separation will always contain an inherent potential for conflict. Only when there is One Will can there be separation and no conflict at the same time. > > The same thing here as I was saying about fear and a ME dissolving. > > > The rigid structure in mind A creates " I want... " , and the rigid > > structure in mind B creates another " I want... " . This is ego > clashing > > against ego, one object consciousness in conflict with another > object > > consciousness. > > > There is no object consciousness clashing with another object > consciousness. > This is conceptualization about a process trying to be explained. Object consciousness is always limited and unique, and this creates conflict between them as long as wills differ. Only when there is One Will will there be peace. > > > This conflict will always be there, because it is > > virtually impossible to make mind A want exactly the same thing as > > mind B> > > > Is wanting the reason conflict arises? > Again, this is a very narrowly *selected assumption*. > Conflict can arise for many reasons. > There is no benefit in selecting a narrow specific belief then > attributing that belief as the sole cause of something happening. Conflict can only cease when there is One Will. > > > > Only in space consciousness, in pure awareness, can mind A > > and mind B live without conflict, because space consciousness is a > an > > all-encompassing consciousness. > > How many minds are there? Each ordinary person has a separate view called a separate mind. But I suspect that there is only One Mind, and only One Will. > > In your conception of space consciousness you are conceiving of 2 > seperate minds living in it without conflict? Space consciousness is, I believe, only the absence of the false idea of having merely a 'separate' consciousness. Separation happens only as a result of consciousness focusing exclusively on fragments, such thinking e t c. It's like looking at a room and not notice the space *between* things. When you look at the computer in front of you, are you aware of the space between you and the screen? > > *It is only mind that is dividing and making 2 minds* > then merging > them to have no conflict in pure awareness. > > This is no different to narrating a story as explanations are given > as the story unfolds to accomodate initial beliefs. > It is only assumptions or beliefs of what expectations a ME has > of 'what will happen' ( to it ) or something that it has > conceptualized as space consciousness. I like the practise to be aware of space, outer and inner, and to be aware of timeless silence as a background/container for all experiences. > > > > > > > Belief is an idea that you can not see or experience directly, > > but > > > > the conflict between humans is a direct observation, a fact > that > > > has > > > > nothing to do with belief.> > > > > > > Conflict does happen between seperate beings, but conflict does > not > > > necessarily arise simply because beings are seperate. > > > > Space consciousness is the One Consciousness, and only by melting > > into That will conflict cease. > > > Conflict is just one thing you have chosen to apply to the notion of > seperateness, you could have chosen from a myriad of things even the > notion of love and applied that to seperateness, saying that love > occurrs because of seperation. > > The minute one starts to *provide* explanations for why things like > conflict arise, one then find reasons why that must be so and the > vagueness of more asumptions increase to explain previous ones. > > If the first is only guessing what can be gained by more thinking, > except the further binding of a ME. > > What needs to or can melt? Conflict will always be the result of separate wills. The bigges conflict is the inner conflict caused by different thoughts/emotions competing with each other internally in an ordinary person. This conflict is what *creates* the ego, and this conflict is almost like a separate entity which Eckhart Tolle calles the pain body, and what Ken Wilber calls the ego contraction in the body. It is this contraction that has to melt; it is the idea of separation and the upholding of this idea that must melt. All conflicts come from this ego contraction. > > > > > > > > > Curiosity will help the process of removing the ego> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego cannot be removed, nor is there a '*need*' to remove > it. > > > > > The ego needs to be '*accepted*'. > > > > > > > > The ego needs to melt into oneness. > > > > > > The ego does not melt away or *need* to be thought of as melting > > away. > > > > For fear to melt away, for boredom, restlessness, hatred and shame > to > > melt away, the ego needs to melt away. > > > No, the ego never melts away, and these thoughts and the emotions > above that they relate to are only thoughts of a ME including ego. > > It is also possible for a ME to not experience these emotions, would > it then be necessary to get rid of the ego or to think to have > it removed? These emotions *are* the ego. > > Getting rid of an ego is a panacea for ego problems like fear, > boredom, hatred etc, but the ego cannot be gotten rid of, > nor does the thought of trying to get rid of it *have* to occurr. > > If you are capable of fear then why is this so, if you are capable of > hate then why since you are also capable of love. J. Krishnamurti said that the ordinary person is not capable of love, because we do not know what love is. Real love is fearless. As long as the illusion called the ego is there, love will be absent. > > If you examine your mind and find out why these thoughts and feelings > arise, why these thoughts and emotions arise instead of those > feelings you are associating with what you seek to experience ( for > *whatever* reason ) then you can change your thinking and emotions. > > If thoughts are arising that you don't deem healthy then isn't the > first step thorough introspection to find out why these thoughts > arise? Thinking is mostly a result of resisting what is. The process of thinking has probably been formed during billions of year, and to find a particular cause will not only take an incredibly lot of time, but would probably also be a wrong answer. J. Krishnamurti said that analysis is an endless process, that no analysis will ever be complete. It is fairly easy to see that this is true. > > You cannot throw away the mechanism that shows both love and hate > *because* you don't like hate, you must transform hate into love. > > > > > > > Causation cannot be seperated from the change happening. > > > > > > > > The change happening is not a real change> > > > > > > The change happening IS real change, and we are aware of it as > what > > > we call change. > > > > Again, I will use the picture of a DVD. This DVD contains all > > possibilities there is. The DVD contains change, yes, but the DVD > is > > not changing> > > The unity / whole contains all possibilities, choices, who, what, > when, who, where etc and the unity does not DO. > > > The DVD is a static and timeless structure, and > > the 'laser' shining on the DVD is awareness, but awareness does not > > shine on one spot on the DVD and moves to the next spot, instead > > awareness shines on _all_ spots on the DVD at the same time, > > timelessly in the now, changelessly in the now. > > The whole is being enacted NOW, and the whole accomodates all choices > and all possibilities occuring now. > > The whole is not a single one thing that can be thought of as pre- > recorded or existing in a definite unchanging single form where > choice and possibility are voided. > The whole accomodates ALL choice and possibility, and there is no > contradiction between a choice a being makes and the enacting of the > whole NOW. Perhaps not, but I believe the universe is changeless. > > > > > >Nothing of 'substance' is > > > > being changed. > > > > > > Substance is changing and that substance is mind, from the > > > physical 'upwards'. > > > > It could be that the mind changes, but I believe in a changeless > > model. > > There need not be contradiction. > > Mind changes, mind is phenomenon. > > Look in at your thoughts and out at the world, mental substance is > moving ( in both cases ). I believe all thoughts are 100% predetermined, and that there is no 'real' change happening to what already is. > > > > > > <Reality forever is> > > > > > > > > > Forever implies time. > > > > Yes, time begun *now*, and explodes into infinity, forever. > > > The now that you are speaking of *is not a moment IN time* > > Forever is IN time, it implies time 'going on', the continuing > presence of time. > > NOW has nothing at all to do with time. I mean change as being time. But since there is no 'real' change according to my model, I use the word time instead. We can say change begun *now*, and explodes into infinity. And now *is* a moment in time, only that there is only now, the only time is now. So, time is not a line starting in some past going into the future and the now being a moment in this time line, rather, the time line is in the now. > > > > > > 'Reality' IS *and* is NOT. > > > > What is is and cannot be made into what is not. > > > What IS? > > When we say that something is, it is only a phenomenal or existence > reality that we can refer to, yet all phenomenon are unreal. > > When we speak of something, reality being or reality IS, then we must > say *Nothing IS*, meaning phenomenon and things that makes up > reality, the cosmos, nothing is inherently real of itself. > > The immutable, eternal, thusness is not a *thing* it cannot be > described as belonging to any realm of reality, it is NOT. > It is the Ayn of the Kabbalists, the void of the Buddhists, Sunyata, > The Sufis fana 'l fana, Lao Tze's 'void filled to the brim'. > > What is, is NOTHING IS, i.e no thing has any independent real > existence. > > The immutable, unchanging REALity is NOT because it is no > such 'thing', we can call it thusness, but it has no reality that we > can PhenomenonLIZE. > > Saying what is IS, is a self contradiction as we understand and use > language. > > Is it any wonder all those Zen fellows used to hit people with sticks > as soon as they opened their mouths ! I don't mean 'what is' like some 'thing' being pointed to. I mean what is is, like 'all that is - simply is'. > > > > > > > <What is, cannot cease to be> > > > > > > > > > What ''''is'''', has never *been*, nor can ever *become* ( > > anything ). > > > > > > To speak of things ( phenomenon ) as 'something IS' ; > > > > > > *Nothing IS* > > > > When I say " what is " , I mean what is and nothing else than that. > > > When you say what is? What do you mean? > > If you mean phenomenon; nothing IS. > If you mean the immutable *unknowable*, it cannot be described as > something and it is NOT. > I don't mean 'what is' like some 'thing' being pointed to. I mean what is is, like 'all that is - simply is'. > > > > Objects can be moved, from the coffee table to the sofa. > > > > Moving a cell phone from the coffee table to the sofa happens. > Think > > of reality as a movie already complete now, and all we are doing > now > > is observing this 'movie' unfold. The movie is *already* 'made' and > > cannot be altered. > > > The 'movie' is not already pre-recorded. > The movie is being enacted NOW, and includes all choices and > possibilities. That's what you believe, and it may be so, but it is only a belief, just as my pre-recorded theory is also only a belief. > > > > > > No you, no me, no God, no anyone is doing anything. > > > > > > > > > You are me are DOing, so are many other different beings. > > > > > > God, if you mean totality cannot and does not do. > > > > Doing happens as a part of the movie of life already made> > > Doing happens live as it arises within the whole, any doing or change > creates time ( the past ). > We cannot act from the future. I think the future causes the past, and that this cause and effect is timeless, changeless. > > > What is > > is. The past is, the now is, the future is, and all this is part of > > what is and what is is already complete *including* every doing. > > Every possibility is fully encompassed yes. > > > So, > > doing happens yes, but there is no *doer*, it is only pure > awareness > > experiencing the doing as a pure changeless observer. > > > There are DOers. > > *The whole unity does not make itself what it is* > > Nor does it *act on itself*, think or DO. I disagree, but that is only my belief I admit. > > > >Similarly, the physical world happening has *already* > > been 'made' - it is complete and changeless. > > If you mean as a pre-recorded fixed thing that cannot be changed to > include possibility within time change from moment to moment then no. > > If you mean as something which encompasses all possibilities within > time then yes. If there is real change then there must be a first change, but is there a first change? /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 3, 2004 Hi again, > > > Can you 'see', count, focus, or subjectify what you call > awareness > > ( > > > in any way )? > > > > Yes> > > No, 'awareness' cannot be counted, subjectified, or focused. <When we are thinking, awarenss is focused on inner thoughts, and when we look at something, then awareness is focused on what is seen.> When we are thinking we are thinking, when we look at something we are looking at something, has awareness itself changed? > >when clarity of perception, fearlessness, and stillness/balance > > of mind is there, then there is pure awareness. > > > What about if there is no clarity of perception, there is fear, there > is unbalance and so on, is there still awareness? <Yes, awareness of a fragmented process we usually call the ego> Awareness then is not *dependent* upon the actions of the ego, whether it be fearlessness / fear, clarity or no clarity, balance or non balance, and it is not revealed in any greater purity or clarity because certain ego traits are present. Stillness calms the 'mind', thought, and it's own distraction, it doesn't make awareness shine any brighter. Thinking binds a ME to itself, but it does not affect awareness itself. In other words, clarity of perception, stillness, balance etc are not dependent causes for awareness to shine nor do they or their presence reveal pure awareness ( any better ). <Enlightenment is simply awareness being liberated from the ego cage.> Is awareness ever trapped? Does it *need* to be liberated? Is awareness a thing that can be spoken of as being able to be liberated? This is conceptualization again about a belief held, and what enlightenment is *TO* a ME. > Does there need to be striving for this revealing, is this revealing > a goal TO be strived for? > Is this revealing even something 'true', that happens, outside of > your expectation? > And is not this striving for something to be acheived or realized > only an expectation of what a ME thinks will happen to IT? > > Any goal, any striving, anything to accomplish is invented by a ME > and that ME is bound ( by it ). <Everything just happens> Yes. <Striving is a part of what is happening> Yes. <No one has any volition. Everybody *do* have volition, but this volition is what is happening and couldn't be otherwise> Anything that 'has' happened has *always* happened. <Everything is already written in the stars.> Everything; all *possibilities* are 'written in the stars'. Life is not 'pre-recorded', it is enacted *within* time. >A person is completely powerless> If *you* believe that, then a ME is bound, if *you* don't believe that a ME is bound. The power that you are denying is the power that allows you *to* deny and to *not* deny, in both cases a ME is bound. >Even the (ego) idea, the firm belief of having some power is not in a person's power to decide about> The ego ( idea ) is just a label we give to the working of mind that thinks of itself as an individual and includes what happens to it and how it thinks about itself. As humans we do have the power of decision and choice and so on, it is a part of makes us this unique type of being. > >Knowledge cannot > > reach this state. > > Knowledge, intellect and thinking are a part of the apparent > phenomenon, 'like' anything else. <Yes, knowledge may be a part of reaching this state> Thinking can help immensely so long as it is completely thrown away later. > Have you experienced what *you* call space consciousness and how do > you recognize this space consciousness as that which you call it? > Does this thing that you term space consciousness happen in levels > where it begins to dawn? <However, I have seen that there are states where my perception becomes clearer and thinking fades away> And this is what you call space consciousness beginning to dawn? >And when this happens, there >is awareness of something more than just objects and thoughts.> More phenomenal or more subtle? > If *you* ( a ME ) are claiming you have experienced anything or > realized something then it is mental phenomenon of a ME and > illusionary. <In the sense that all memories are not reality happening now, yes> No, in the sense that a ME is claiming that it has realized something; *That ME is saying that IT is bound* > Saying that 'I have realized' or have begun to realize and so on, is > a ME bound to expectation of achieving something or some state. > Even going on to say that one is closer to this expected state or > further from this expected state binds the ME that thinks so. <One has to observe all that is happening, even oneself an an observer.> This is another expectation of what should a ME should or has to do; Who is the one that has to observe? Who is the one's self that is the observER? > > > Enlightenment is the biggest unicorn, going on to state what > > > enlightenment is, then giving ideas as to how it might happen > > > is putting a saddle on the unicorn and then riding it. > > > > Enlightenment is the recognition of the no-mind; pure awareness - > > awareness coming to know itself in its clear form. > > How many forms does awareness have? <Awareness can be trapped in the cage of the ego> How can awareness be trapped in an ego cage? Was awareness ever bound? *It is a ME including ego that is affirming that *awareness* is trapped in a !concept! ( ego )* Like an image saying that the mirror is trapped by an image. >And awareness can be free from that prison. Awareness is simply awareness, but there can be shallow and fragmented awareness> How can awareness be fragmented? How many awareness's are there? >and there can be liberated, deep and non-fragmented awareness. Does awareness become liberated? > This is an idea about what the concept of enlightenment is to you, > and what you conceive happens during the process of your concept of > enlightenment which also includes what you think of the concept of no- > mind and what it is. > If enlightenment is a goal to be reached, if there is something to be > attained then a ME is bound. <Enlightenment is a goal, and when the seeking stops naturally, then the goal is near I believe> If the goal is near, the goal still exists, a ME is still striving and a ME still bound. *If enlightenment is a goal to be reached, if there is something to be attained then a ME is bound* >I think everything is predetermined to happen exactly as things happen> Every possibility is fully encompassed, this is not the same as pre- determined. >So I believe one just have to >enjoy/endure the ride> The difference between endure and enjoy depends on 'your own mind'. >Seeking will happen or stop according to God's >plan. What is 'your' relationship to God? There is no GOD to be *found* or to make a plan for *YOU* to realize the illusion of enlightenment. > You would have heard of 'taming the monkey mind'. > The mind of someone who doesn't, can't or hasn't watched 'their own > mind' or doesn't understand mind is like this. > Empty puppet bodies dragged to and fro by thoughts, reactions, > conditioning and thinking. > It is like the difference between being on autopilot and flying the > plane yourself. >I think there is (I) autopilot as an ego, (II) flying the plane yourself, and (III) autopilot as the One Self> Autopilot means acting without mindfulness, acting with mindfulness is what I called flying the plane yourself, *both* of these *require* an ego in which to act, the difference is the mindfulness part. For what you call Autopilot III: The whole cannot act think or do, it IS, and the doing both with and without mindfulness is the functioning of the whole. > > > The 'human mind' is not awareness. > > > > When awareness shines on memories and sense perception, then this > > whole process can be called the human mind. So, the human mind is > > awareness + content. Or we can say that awareness at rest is pure > > awareness, and awareness with ripples in it is awareness with > > content 'in' it. > > > The human mind is mental matter, thoughts and emotions, it is > an 'object'. > What we call awareness is a concept itself with absolutely no human- > ness about it whatsoever. >We as humans are self-aware, and that is a direct evidence for awareness> No-thing is self aware, we do not own '''our''' awareness and we are not responsible for its existence, there is no-THING that is self-aware, no could there ever BE anything phenomenal self-aware. This is the Buddhists no-self doctrine. **God owns the person not the other way around** > When there is harmony yes there is no conflict, by definition, when > there is peace there is no war. > > Does this seperation necessarily imply war? This was my point. > > Saying that conflict necessarily follows seperation is only a belief. >There can be separation and no conflict only when there is One Will> The whole cannot 'will' ( itself ). This is more conceptualizing about expectations of what will avoid conflict > to *solve* the 'problem' a ME feels has got to solved because it has *selected* conflict as an *appropriate problem* to which it will now find a solution to. > It is not correct to say that seperation *necessarily* implies > conflict, the belief that seperation implies conflict is a narrowly > selected belief. >All separation will always contain an inherent potential for conflict> All seperation will contain an inherent potential for love. Why select any narrow specific belief and then give such equally narrow assumptions for it's causes? >Only when there is One Will can there be separation and no conflict at the same time> 'One will' is another remedy for what will stop conflict; or specifically *for you*, what you think will stop conflict. The whole cannot will, act on itself, or do. > The same thing here as I was saying about fear and a ME dissolving. > > > The rigid structure in mind A creates " I want... " , and the rigid > > structure in mind B creates another " I want... " . This is ego > clashing > > against ego, one object consciousness in conflict with another > object > > consciousness. > > > There is no object consciousness clashing with another object > consciousness. > This is conceptualization about a process trying to be explained. >Object consciousness is always limited and unique, and this creates conflict between them as long as wills differ. > What clashes? >Only when there is One Will will there be peace.> The whole cannot will. > Is wanting the reason conflict arises? > Again, this is a very narrowly *selected assumption*. > Conflict can arise for many reasons. > There is no benefit in selecting a narrow specific belief then > attributing that belief as the sole cause of something happening. <Conflict can only cease when there is One Will> Again, the whole cannot will. > Only in space consciousness, in pure awareness, can mind A > > and mind B live without conflict, because space consciousness is a > an > > all-encompassing consciousness. > > How many minds are there? <Each ordinary person has a separate view called a separate mind> A mind does not *look*, it is not a view. But what makes us seperate, the way we are can be thought of as a seperate view, yes, which includes our specific emotions, thoughts, mind body etc. >But I suspect that there is only One Mind, and only One Will. What about A mind, THE mind, MY mind, ONE mind? There is no whole's will. > In your conception of space consciousness you are conceiving of 2 > seperate minds living in it without conflict? <Space consciousness is, I believe, only the absence of the false idea of having merely a 'separate' consciousnes> You have already defined space consciousness previously and given indicative conditions of how one might recognize when this consciousness is 'beginning to dawn'? You are saying now that space consciousness is what you *believe* to be the false idea of having a merely seperate consciousness? <Separation happens only as a result of consciousness focusing exclusively on fragments, such thinking e t c> Seperation is the *nature* of the manifestation at the physical level. It could not be otherwise. <It's like looking at a room and not notice the space *between* things. When you look at the computer in front of you, are you aware of the space between you and the screen?> Yes. > *It is only mind that is dividing and making 2 minds* > then merging > them to have no conflict in pure awareness. > > This is no different to narrating a story as explanations are given > as the story unfolds to accomodate initial beliefs. > It is only assumptions or beliefs of what expectations a ME has > of 'what will happen' ( to it ) or something that it has > conceptualized as space consciousness. <I like the practise to be aware of space, outer and inner> Yes, clear awareness of *both* the inner and the outer; are these 2? >and to be aware of timeless silence as a background/container for all experiences.> Can one be aware of timeless silence? > The minute one starts to *provide* explanations for why things like > conflict arise, one then find reasons why that must be so and the > vagueness of more asumptions increase to explain previous ones. > > If the first is only guessing what can be gained by more thinking, > except the further binding of a ME. > > What needs to or can melt? <Conflict will always be the result of separate wills> They have to be seperate first, then they have to have a will, then they ... <The bigges conflict is the inner conflict caused by different thoughts/emotions competing with each other internally in an ordinary person> Why does this conflict occurr? >This conflict is what *creates* the ego> No, this does not create the ego. The ego is there in conflict or no conflict, harmony or peace. >and this conflict is almost like a separate entity which Eckhart Tolle calles the pain body, and what Ken Wilber calls the ego contraction in the body> You don't need the crutch of Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle to tell *YOU about you*. In fact the sad thing is that these people sometimes take away the power of self transformation and empowerment of change from people who become dependent on them and *their concepts and ideas*. Ken Wilber and Eckhart Tolle can never help you find out about yourself, the task of introspection and self knowledge falls squarely on your shoulders should you desire to pursue it. ( Complaining or worrying about ) internal strife is *proof* that introspection has not occurred. >It is this contraction that has to melt; it is the idea of separation and the upholding of this idea that must melt. All conflicts come from this ego contraction> If there is no internal conflict there is still an ego. > No, the ego never melts away, and these thoughts and the emotions > above that they relate to are only thoughts of a ME including ego. > > It is also possible for a ME to not experience these emotions, would > it then be necessary to get rid of the ego or to think to have > it removed? >These emotions *are* the ego.> What we call the ego includes thoughts, emotions etc, the ego is a label we give to the workings of the mind which thinks of itself as an individual mind / body organism. If a ME did *not* experience the emotions that you have mentioned such as boredom, fear, hate would there still be the necessity to get rid of the ego or to think to have it removed? > Getting rid of an ego is a panacea for ego problems like fear, > boredom, hatred etc, but the ego cannot be gotten rid of, > nor does the thought of trying to get rid of it *have* to occurr. > > If you are capable of fear then why is this so, if you are capable of > hate then why since you are also capable of love. >J. Krishnamurti said that the ordinary person is not capable of love, because we do not know what love is> Anyone is capable of love, animals are capable of love. It is the degree or *quality* that differs. In ordinary people I agree, they are not capable of higher love; They *are capable* of higher love, just not *in their present state*, ( which can change ). This is different to saying people are not capable of love. >Real love is fearless. As long >as the illusion called the ego is there, love will be absent. Again, you cannot get rid of an ego, nor do you have to think that you have to, it is a contradiction in terms. We are perfectly capable of loving with a fully intact and functioning ego > If you examine your mind and find out why these thoughts and feelings > arise, why these thoughts and emotions arise instead of those > feelings you are associating with what you seek to experience ( for > *whatever* reason ) then you can change your thinking and emotions. > > If thoughts are arising that you don't deem healthy then isn't the > first step thorough introspection to find out why these thoughts > arise? >Thinking is mostly a result of resisting what is> Thinking is not the result of resisting what is, this is another *narrowly selected* belief. >The process of thinking has probably been formed during billions of year, and to find a particular cause will not only take an incredibly lot of time, but would probably also be a wrong answer> I am talking about finding causes within *yourself* if you are feeling anger, hate, etc instead of those traits that you deem to be more desirable. Every system of self-development and initiation places introspection as the first pre-requisite, the reason why so many systems fail is because this vital step is most often left out. Unless you can take stock of your traits and flaws *objectively* and see how you *React* to external events and circumstances, true development is impossible. We unconsciously introspect daily, but in order to not react from an instinctual non-mindful position one must practice introspection, it is not an option in so far as self knowledge is concerned. >J. Krishnamurti said that analysis is an endless process, that no analysis will ever be complete. It is fairly easy to see that this is true> Are you following his counsel? > > > >Nothing of 'substance' is > > > > being changed. > > > > > > Substance is changing and that substance is mind, from the > > > physical 'upwards'. > > > > It could be that the mind changes, but I believe in a changeless > > model. > > There need not be contradiction. > > Mind changes, mind is phenomenon. > > Look in at your thoughts and out at the world, mental substance is > moving ( in both cases ). <I believe all thoughts are 100% predetermined, and that there is no 'real' change happening to what already is.> Do you think that *what is*, accomodates the potential for change? > NOW has nothing at all to do with time. <I mean change as being time. But since there is no 'real' change according to my model, I use the word time instead. Yes, time is dependent upon change. <We can say change begun *now*, and explodes into infinity> In speaking of beginning you are marking a moment within time; Time itself is dependent upon change as is the notion of beginning. >And now *is* a moment in time, only that there is only now, the only time is now> There are two ways of speaking of Now; Now, as within time, as the way it is normally spoken of by people, like I am going shopping now, it marks a reference within time. NOW, as the 'eternal' 'outside of time', that is spoken of by sages and what you are normally speaking about which has nothing to do with time. >So, time is not a line starting in some past going into the future and the now being a moment in this time line, rather, the time line is in the now. Yes, now is not a line going backward and forward. If this is the eternal now we are speaking of then it has nothing to do with time and time is 'within' it yes. > > > 'Reality' IS *and* is NOT. > > > > What is is and cannot be made into what is not. > > > What IS? > > When we say that something is, it is only a phenomenal or existence > reality that we can refer to, yet all phenomenon are unreal. > > When we speak of something, reality being or reality IS, then we must > say *Nothing IS*, meaning phenomenon and things that makes up > reality, the cosmos, nothing is inherently real of itself. > > The immutable, eternal, thusness is not a *thing* it cannot be > described as belonging to any realm of reality, it is NOT. > It is the Ayn of the Kabbalists, the void of the Buddhists, Sunyata, > The Sufis fana 'l fana, Lao Tze's 'void filled to the brim'. > > What is, is NOTHING IS, i.e no thing has any independent real > existence. > > The immutable, unchanging REALity is NOT because it is no > such 'thing', we can call it thusness, but it has no reality that we > can PhenomenonLIZE. > > Saying what is IS, is a self contradiction as we understand and use > language. > > Is it any wonder all those Zen fellows used to hit people with sticks > as soon as they opened their mouths ! <I don't mean 'what is' like some 'thing' being pointed to. I mean what is is, like 'all that is - simply is'> Saying something IS points to the existence of something. All is not nothing. ALL is, as opposed to is not; It is a metaphysical contradiction in saying 'All that is, is' because all that is, is nothing IS, and all that truly '''is''' is NOT. Existence and non-existence; Reality both IS ( Nothing *IS* ) and IS NOT. > > > <What is, cannot cease to be> > > > > > > > > > What ''''is'''', has never *been*, nor can ever *become* ( > > anything ). > > > > > > To speak of things ( phenomenon ) as 'something IS' ; > > > > > > *Nothing IS* > > > > When I say " what is " , I mean what is and nothing else than that. > > > When you say what is? What do you mean? > > If you mean phenomenon; nothing IS. > If you mean the immutable *unknowable*, it cannot be described as > something and it is NOT. > >I don't mean 'what is' like some 'thing' being pointed to. I mean what is is, like 'all that is - simply is'.> All that is - simply IS ( nothing *IS* ), AND is NOT. > > > > Objects can be moved, from the coffee table to the sofa. > > > > Moving a cell phone from the coffee table to the sofa happens. > Think > > of reality as a movie already complete now, and all we are doing > now > > is observing this 'movie' unfold. The movie is *already* 'made' and > > cannot be altered. > > > The 'movie' is not already pre-recorded. > The movie is being enacted NOW, and includes all choices and > possibilities. >That's what you believe, and it may be so, but it is only a belief, just as my pre-recorded theory is also only a belief.> Does God accomodate both yes and nos, for no purpose? *It is only from *within* time that choice happens* > > > > No you, no me, no God, no anyone is doing anything. > > > > > > > > > You are me are DOing, so are many other different beings. > > > > > > God, if you mean totality cannot and does not do. > > > > Doing happens as a part of the movie of life already made> > > Doing happens live as it arises within the whole, any doing or change > creates time ( the past ). > We cannot act from the future. <I think the future causes the past> Do you believe that we act from the future? > There are DOers. > > *The whole unity does not make itself what it is* > > Nor does it *act on itself*, think or DO. <I disagree, but that is only my belief I admit> Can *wholeness* act on itself? Can *immanence* will itself? > >Similarly, the physical world happening has *already* > > been 'made' - it is complete and changeless. > > If you mean as a pre-recorded fixed thing that cannot be changed to > include possibility within time change from moment to moment then no. > > If you mean as something which encompasses all possibilities within > time then yes. >If there is real change then there must be a first change, but is there a first change?> Speaking of *first* change is putting the time cart before the phenomenon horse. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > Can you 'see', count, focus, or subjectify what you call > > awareness > > > ( > > > > in any way )? > > > > > > Yes> > > > > No, 'awareness' cannot be counted, subjectified, or focused. > > <When we are thinking, awarenss is focused on inner thoughts, and when > we look at something, then awareness is focused on what is seen.> > > > When we are thinking we are thinking, when we look at something we > are looking at something, has awareness itself changed? No, awareness is forever the same. What awareness experiences varies in an infinite number of variations. Without variation and limitation to what awareness can focus on in any given instance, life would be utterly boring. The All looking at the All forever - how boring is that? :-) > > > > >when clarity of perception, fearlessness, and stillness/balance > > > of mind is there, then there is pure awareness. > > > > > > What about if there is no clarity of perception, there is fear, > there > > is unbalance and so on, is there still awareness? > > > <Yes, awareness of a fragmented process we usually call the ego> > > > Awareness then is not *dependent* upon the actions of the ego, > whether it be fearlessness / fear, clarity or no clarity, balance or > non balance, and it is not revealed in any greater purity or clarity > because certain ego traits are present. > > Stillness calms the 'mind', thought, and it's own distraction, it > doesn't make awareness shine any brighter. > Thinking binds a ME to itself, but it does not affect awareness > itself. > > In other words, clarity of perception, stillness, balance etc are not > dependent causes for awareness to shine nor do they or their presence > reveal pure awareness ( any better ). That right. Awareness is forever pure and the same. It is the obstacles and the contractions called the ego that has to loosen up a bit (but not go away altogether, because the sense [illusion] of separation is what makes life interesting). > > > > <Enlightenment is simply awareness being liberated from the ego cage.> > > > Is awareness ever trapped? > Does it *need* to be liberated? > Is awareness a thing that can be spoken of as being able to be > liberated? > > This is conceptualization again about a belief held, and what > enlightenment is *TO* a ME. Yes, when awareness experience itself in the human form, more often than not, there is fear and fear takes as being 'real' is a form of a cage. > > > > > Does there need to be striving for this revealing, is this > revealing > > a goal TO be strived for? > > Is this revealing even something 'true', that happens, outside of > > your expectation? > > And is not this striving for something to be acheived or realized > > only an expectation of what a ME thinks will happen to IT? > > > > Any goal, any striving, anything to accomplish is invented by a ME > > and that ME is bound ( by it ). > > <Everything just happens> > > Yes. > > <Striving is a part of what is happening> > > Yes. > > > <No > one has any volition. Everybody *do* have volition, but this volition > is what is happening and couldn't be otherwise> > > > Anything that 'has' happened has *always* happened. > > > <Everything is already written in the stars.> > > > Everything; all *possibilities* are 'written in the stars'. > > Life is not 'pre-recorded', it is enacted *within* time. > > > >A person is completely powerless> > > > If *you* believe that, then a ME is bound, if *you* don't believe > that a ME is bound. > > The power that you are denying is the power that allows you *to* deny > and to *not* deny, in both cases a ME is bound. A person is completely powerless. God is the only power. > > > > >Even the > (ego) idea, the firm belief of having some power is not in a person's > power to decide about> > > > The ego ( idea ) is just a label we give to the working of mind that > thinks of itself as an individual and includes what happens to it > and how it thinks about itself. > > As humans we do have the power of decision and choice and so on, it > is a part of makes us this unique type of being. A human being is being *done* by the universe. A human being cannot do anything by itself, because the 'me' is a divine hypnosis brought about by the universe in order for life to happen. So, sure, there are choices made, but only as a game played by the universe on itself. There is no 'you' other than what the universe makes 'you'. :- ) Sorry, you have no choice, you have no volition - in fact, there never has been a 'you', and there never will be a 'you'. All is one wholeness acting. All is One Will. All is the Will of God. ;-) > > > > >Knowledge cannot > > > reach this state. > > > > Knowledge, intellect and thinking are a part of the apparent > > phenomenon, 'like' anything else. > > <Yes, knowledge may be a part of reaching this state> > > > Thinking can help immensely so long as it is completely thrown away > later. Yes! That is what I believe. Thinking is a *game* needed initially in order for the One to experience itself as the Many. > > > > > Have you experienced what *you* call space consciousness and how do > > you recognize this space consciousness as that which you call it? > > Does this thing that you term space consciousness happen in levels > > where it begins to dawn? > > <However, I have seen that there are states where my perception > becomes clearer and thinking fades away> > > > And this is what you call space consciousness beginning to dawn? Space consciousness dawns when you *actually* see that there is more to you than the 'you', when the present moment deepens and liberates you a bit from the ego. The ego is 'object consciousness' hooked into itself as a form of 'me'. When you become aware of the fact that there is more to this moment than the empty nothingness the ego wants to make of it, then you begin to loosen up, then fear begins to melt. > > > >And when this happens, there > >is awareness of something more than just objects and thoughts.> > > > More phenomenal or more subtle? More subtle, as in finer grained reality. A vastness that is the result of a more fine grained view where 'objects' become loosened up a bit by a spacious clarity. > > > > If *you* ( a ME ) are claiming you have experienced anything or > > realized something then it is mental phenomenon of a ME and > > illusionary. > > <In the sense that all memories are not reality happening now, yes> > > > No, in the sense that a ME is claiming that it has realized > something; > > *That ME is saying that IT is bound* What makes a ME is the memories, knowledge and experiences of the world and a 'me' in relation to that world. This world is only an inner world created by conditionings in relation to inherited human gene structures. Object consciousness is looking at this inner world and the 'me' and cannot see anything else. Space consciousness is the ability to see that this inner world is only a limited fragment of what is. > > > > > Saying that 'I have realized' or have begun to realize and so on, > is > > a ME bound to expectation of achieving something or some state. > > Even going on to say that one is closer to this expected state or > > further from this expected state binds the ME that thinks so. > > <One has to observe all that is happening, even oneself an an > observer.> > > > This is another expectation of what should a ME should or has to do; > > Who is the one that has to observe? > Who is the one's self that is the observER? The realization is that there is awareness and 'objects' this awareness is aware of. When this is realized, then awareness begins to be liberated, because the 'objects' is not the whole picture. > > > > > > > Enlightenment is the biggest unicorn, going on to state what > > > > enlightenment is, then giving ideas as to how it might happen > > > > is putting a saddle on the unicorn and then riding it. > > > > > > Enlightenment is the recognition of the no-mind; pure awareness - > > > awareness coming to know itself in its clear form. > > > > How many forms does awareness have? > > <Awareness can be trapped in the cage of the ego> > > > How can awareness be trapped in an ego cage? > Was awareness ever bound? > > *It is a ME including ego that is affirming that *awareness* is > trapped in a !concept! ( ego )* > > Like an image saying that the mirror is trapped by an image. Yes, awareness is trapped in an image called 'me' and the 'world'. This cage is nothing but a very limited cage, a tiny fragment of what is. > > > >And awareness can be > free from that prison. Awareness is simply awareness, but there can > be shallow and fragmented awareness> > > > How can awareness be fragmented? > How many awareness's are there? Awareness is one and forever free. It is the *illusion* of the ego that makes awareness feel trapped and fragmented. > > > >and there can be liberated, deep > and non-fragmented awareness. > > > Does awareness become liberated? Yes, when the ego cage is blown away. > > > > This is an idea about what the concept of enlightenment is to you, > > and what you conceive happens during the process of your concept of > > enlightenment which also includes what you think of the concept of > no- > > mind and what it is. > > If enlightenment is a goal to be reached, if there is something to > be > > attained then a ME is bound. > > <Enlightenment is a goal, and when the seeking stops naturally, then > the goal is near I believe> > > > If the goal is near, the goal still exists, a ME is still striving > and a ME still bound. > > *If enlightenment is a goal to be reached, if there is something to > be attained then a ME is bound* Yes, the ME is bound all the way *until* liberation happens. > > > >I think everything is predetermined to > happen exactly as things happen> > > Every possibility is fully encompassed, this is not the same as pre- > determined. Maybe, maybe not. :-) > > > >So I believe one just have to > >enjoy/endure the ride> > > > The difference between endure and enjoy depends on 'your own mind'. Your 'own' mind *is* the cage. > > > >Seeking will happen or stop according to God's > >plan. > > > What is 'your' relationship to God? > > There is no GOD to be *found* or to make a plan for *YOU* to realize > the illusion of enlightenment. I believe God can be found through prayer and sincere devotion. God, according to me, is the Self, or the All. Self-realization is the realization that God is everything and that everything is interconnected in One wholeness, One will. > > > > You would have heard of 'taming the monkey mind'. > > The mind of someone who doesn't, can't or hasn't watched 'their own > > mind' or doesn't understand mind is like this. > > Empty puppet bodies dragged to and fro by thoughts, reactions, > > conditioning and thinking. > > It is like the difference between being on autopilot and flying the > > plane yourself. > > >I think there is (I) autopilot as an ego, (II) flying the plane > yourself, and (III) autopilot as the One Self> > > > Autopilot means acting without mindfulness, acting with mindfulness > is what I called flying the plane yourself, *both* of these > *require* an ego in which to act, the difference is the mindfulness > part. > > For what you call Autopilot III: > > The whole cannot act think or do, it IS, and the doing both with and > without mindfulness is the functioning of the whole. What I call Autopilot III *is* 100% mindfulness, a total action, not a fragmented action in the form of some childish separate will. ;-) > > > > > > The 'human mind' is not awareness. > > > > > > When awareness shines on memories and sense perception, then this > > > whole process can be called the human mind. So, the human mind is > > > awareness + content. Or we can say that awareness at rest is pure > > > awareness, and awareness with ripples in it is awareness with > > > content 'in' it. > > > > > > The human mind is mental matter, thoughts and emotions, it is > > an 'object'. > > What we call awareness is a concept itself with absolutely no human- > > ness about it whatsoever. > > >We as humans are self-aware, and that is a direct evidence for > awareness> > > > No-thing is self aware, we do not own '''our''' awareness and we are > not responsible for its existence, > there is no-THING that is self-aware, no could there ever BE anything > phenomenal self-aware. > This is the Buddhists no-self doctrine. > > **God owns the person not the other way around** We are not responsible for *anything*. Individual responsibility is a childish ego notion. And, yes, no-thing is self-aware. *ALL* there is, is no-thing happening. > > > > When there is harmony yes there is no conflict, by definition, when > > there is peace there is no war. > > > > Does this seperation necessarily imply war? This was my point. > > > > Saying that conflict necessarily follows seperation is only a > belief. > > >There can be separation and no conflict only when there is One Will> > > > The whole cannot 'will' ( itself ). > > This is more conceptualizing about expectations of what will avoid > conflict > to *solve* the 'problem' a ME feels has got to solved > because it has *selected* conflict as an *appropriate problem* to > which it will now find a solution to. The whole is love in action, creating itself. This is the One Will. Only with One Will can there be true peace and fearless joy. (See A Course in Miracles) > > > > It is not correct to say that seperation *necessarily* implies > > conflict, the belief that seperation implies conflict is a narrowly > > selected belief. > > >All separation will always contain an inherent potential for > conflict> > > > All seperation will contain an inherent potential for love. Separation is needed on the level of appearance in order for there to be some interesting stuff happening, but the *deep* relation between separate 'entities' is no separation at all. > > Why select any narrow specific belief and then give such equally > narrow assumptions for it's causes? Separation is narrowing down the All, and this separation is needed in order to create the One and the Many. But the fundamental truth that 'All is one' is the next step for humanity to take. > > > >Only when there is One Will can there be separation and no > conflict at the same time> > > > 'One will' is another remedy for what will stop conflict; or > specifically *for you*, what you think will stop conflict. > > The whole cannot will, act on itself, or do. The whole *is* what is happening now. That's *all* there is. You don't have a separate 'you', you only *think* you do. And even this thinking is the whole happening now, see? > > > > The same thing here as I was saying about fear and a ME dissolving. > > > > > The rigid structure in mind A creates " I want... " , and the rigid > > > structure in mind B creates another " I want... " . This is ego > > clashing > > > against ego, one object consciousness in conflict with another > > object > > > consciousness. > > > > > > There is no object consciousness clashing with another object > > consciousness. > > This is conceptualization about a process trying to be explained. > > >Object consciousness is always limited and unique, and this creates > conflict between them as long as wills differ. > > > > What clashes? The illusion of having separate wills will always result in conflict. If there is no conflict, then there *is* no separate will, but only one will. > > > >Only when there is One > Will will there be peace.> > > > The whole cannot will. The whole happening is what is happening now. The separate 'you' is an illusion 'created' by the whole happening now as the 'one and the many'. > > > > Is wanting the reason conflict arises? > > Again, this is a very narrowly *selected assumption*. > > Conflict can arise for many reasons. > > There is no benefit in selecting a narrow specific belief then > > attributing that belief as the sole cause of something happening. > > <Conflict can only cease when there is One Will> > > > Again, the whole cannot will. The whole is all there is. Even the movement down to the smallest atom is *oneness* in motion. > > > > Only in space consciousness, in pure awareness, can mind A > > > and mind B live without conflict, because space consciousness is > a > > an > > > all-encompassing consciousness. > > > > How many minds are there? > > <Each ordinary person has a separate view called a separate mind> > > > A mind does not *look*, it is not a view. > > But what makes us seperate, the way we are can be thought of as a > seperate view, yes, which includes our specific emotions, thoughts, > mind body etc. > > > >But > I suspect that there is only One Mind, and only One Will. > > > What about A mind, THE mind, MY mind, ONE mind? > > There is no whole's will. All there is is One Mind. > > > > In your conception of space consciousness you are conceiving of 2 > > seperate minds living in it without conflict? > > > <Space consciousness is, I believe, only the absence of the false idea > of having merely a 'separate' consciousnes> > > > You have already defined space consciousness previously and given > indicative conditions of how one might recognize when this > consciousness is 'beginning to dawn'? > > You are saying now that space consciousness is what you *believe* to > be the false idea of having a merely seperate consciousness? It can also be that when space consciousness is realized fully, then there will be no 'separate' consciousness at all. > > > > <Separation happens only > as a result of consciousness focusing exclusively on fragments, such > thinking e t c> > > > Seperation is the *nature* of the manifestation at the physical level. > It could not be otherwise. Yes, separation is needed in order to create any experience, but when the deep connection of oneness is lacking, there will be conflict and suffering. > > > <It's like looking at a room and not notice the space > *between* things. When you look at the computer in front of you, are > you aware of the space between you and the screen?> > > > Yes. Only when I pointed it out to you. :-) > > > > *It is only mind that is dividing and making 2 minds* > then > merging > > them to have no conflict in pure awareness. > > > > This is no different to narrating a story as explanations are given > > as the story unfolds to accomodate initial beliefs. > > It is only assumptions or beliefs of what expectations a ME has > > of 'what will happen' ( to it ) or something that it has > > conceptualized as space consciousness. > > <I like the practise to be aware of space, outer and inner> > > > Yes, clear awareness of *both* the inner and the outer; are these 2? Yes, awareness of outer space is the deep sense of 3D reality (even thought our eyes only give 2D projections), and the inner space is when thinking is loosened up a bit and some clarity is revealed *between* the dense thought structures. > > > >and to be > aware of timeless silence as a background/container for all > experiences.> > > Can one be aware of timeless silence? O Yes. When the restless time sense is seen through. > > > > The minute one starts to *provide* explanations for why things like > > conflict arise, one then find reasons why that must be so and the > > vagueness of more asumptions increase to explain previous ones. > > > > If the first is only guessing what can be gained by more thinking, > > except the further binding of a ME. > > > > What needs to or can melt? > > <Conflict will always be the result of separate wills> > > > They have to be seperate first, then they have to have a will, then > they ... Yes, there must be separation in order for experience to happen. The All exploding into infinite separation, and the collects itself back again as the One and the Many. There can be only One. Yet, this one can play the game of being many. :-) > > > <The bigges > conflict is the inner conflict caused by different thoughts/emotions > competing with each other internally in an ordinary person> > > > Why does this conflict occurr? Because of 'wants'. The 'want' in you that wins will be what you will find yourself doing. If you for example want to watch TV, but you know that you should do the dishes first, then there is a conflict between 'watching TV' and 'doing the dishes', and pride, guilt, responsibility, and pleaseure seeking will compete *internally* in you and this is the seed of conflict and suffering. > > > >This > conflict is what *creates* the ego> > > > No, this does not create the ego. > The ego is there in conflict or no conflict, harmony or peace. When you *really* enjoy yourself, then the ego is not there, then the 'past you' and the 'future you' is not there. And the ego *is* the 'past you' and the 'future you'. > > > >and this conflict is almost like > a separate entity which Eckhart Tolle calles the pain body, and what > Ken Wilber calls the ego contraction in the body> > > > You don't need the crutch of Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle to tell *YOU > about you*. That's true, but these persons have their versions of describing the pain body, and I don't feel it is nescessary for me to create more definitions. Well, I do have another term for this, and I call it the 'time body', just to feel that I can contribute with something new, which will give me a sense of 'humble' pride. :-) > > In fact the sad thing is that these people sometimes take away the > power of self transformation and empowerment of change from > people who become dependent on them and *their concepts and ideas*. > > Ken Wilber and Eckhart Tolle can never help you find out about > yourself, the task of introspection and self knowledge falls > squarely on your shoulders should you desire to pursue it. > > ( Complaining or worrying about ) internal strife is *proof* that > introspection has not occurred. The *real* truth is I believe that there is no difference between me, you , and Eckhart Tolle and that 'you' think you can do stuff on your own is only ego bullshit. Hahahaha. ;-) > > > >It is this > contraction that has to melt; it is the idea of separation and the > upholding of this idea that must melt. All conflicts come from this > ego contraction> > > > If there is no internal conflict there is still an ego. No, because the ego *is* the conflict between what is and 'me'. > > > > No, the ego never melts away, and these thoughts and the emotions > > above that they relate to are only thoughts of a ME including ego. > > > > It is also possible for a ME to not experience these emotions, > would > > it then be necessary to get rid of the ego or to think to have > > it removed? > > >These emotions *are* the ego.> > > > What we call the ego includes thoughts, emotions etc, the ego is a > label we give to the workings of the mind which thinks of itself > as an individual mind / body organism. > > If a ME did *not* experience the emotions that you have mentioned > such as boredom, fear, hate would there still be the necessity to get > rid of the ego or to think to have it removed? When there is peace and joy, then the ego is already gone. > > > > Getting rid of an ego is a panacea for ego problems like fear, > > boredom, hatred etc, but the ego cannot be gotten rid of, > > nor does the thought of trying to get rid of it *have* to occurr. > > > > If you are capable of fear then why is this so, if you are capable > of > > hate then why since you are also capable of love. > > >J. Krishnamurti said that the ordinary person is not capable of love, > because we do not know what love is> > > > Anyone is capable of love, animals are capable of love. Osho said that animal love is just hormones in action. An alligator mother protects her children, while the father wants to eat them; he just wants a good breakfast. :-) When the father alligator is being injected with the same hormones as the mother, then he will protect the children instead of eating them! > > It is the degree or *quality* that differs. > > In ordinary people I agree, they are not capable of higher love; > > They *are capable* of higher love, just not *in their present state*, > ( which can change ). > > This is different to saying people are not capable of love. I think J. Krishnamurti was on to something. What we normally call love is just the liking of our own internal *images*. > > > >Real love is fearless. As long > >as the illusion called the ego is there, love will be absent. > > > Again, you cannot get rid of an ego, nor do you have to think that > you have to, it is a contradiction in terms. > > We are perfectly capable of loving with a fully intact and > functioning ego When there is fear there will not be true love. > > > > If you examine your mind and find out why these thoughts and > feelings > > arise, why these thoughts and emotions arise instead of those > > feelings you are associating with what you seek to experience ( for > > *whatever* reason ) then you can change your thinking and emotions. > > > > If thoughts are arising that you don't deem healthy then isn't the > > first step thorough introspection to find out why these thoughts > > arise? > > >Thinking is mostly a result of resisting what is> > > > Thinking is not the result of resisting what is, this is another > *narrowly selected* belief. Thinking is not needed. Thinking is just a filtered 'view' of what is going on. Thinking itself cannot do anything. This view is from the ego viewpoint focused on protecting itself and this creates a rigid internal mind structure that consequently will always be in conflict with reality, because reality is flowing and not rigid. > > > >The process of > thinking has probably been formed during billions of year, and to > find a particular cause will not only take an incredibly lot of time, > but would probably also be a wrong answer> > > > I am talking about finding causes within *yourself* if you are > feeling anger, hate, etc instead of those traits that you deem > to be more desirable. But you see, 'yourself' *is* all these billion years of evolution. > > Every system of self-development and initiation places introspection > as the first pre-requisite, the reason why so many systems fail > is because this vital step is most often left out. > > Unless you can take stock of your traits and flaws *objectively* and > see how you *React* to external > events and circumstances, true development is impossible. > > We unconsciously introspect daily, but in order to not react from an > instinctual non-mindful position one must practice introspection, > it is not an option in so far as self knowledge is concerned. > > > >J. Krishnamurti said that > analysis is an endless process, that no analysis will ever be > complete. It is fairly easy to see that this is true> > > > Are you following his counsel? I think of it from time to time. I think analysis will be needed as long as it is needed, and when it is no longer needed it may still be there for some time just because old thought structures maybe don't go away immediately. > > > > > > >Nothing of 'substance' is > > > > > being changed. > > > > > > > > Substance is changing and that substance is mind, from the > > > > physical 'upwards'. > > > > > > It could be that the mind changes, but I believe in a changeless > > > model. > > > > There need not be contradiction. > > > > Mind changes, mind is phenomenon. > > > > Look in at your thoughts and out at the world, mental substance is > > moving ( in both cases ). > > <I believe all thoughts are 100% predetermined, and that there is > no 'real' change happening to what already is.> > > > Do you think that *what is*, accomodates the potential for change? What is *is* potential for change, and this change is happening now. But there is no past, and no future - this change happening now is a *single* atomic event. How can a single atomic event change? > > > > NOW has nothing at all to do with time. > > <I mean change as being time. But since there is no 'real' change > according to my model, I use the word time instead. > > > Yes, time is dependent upon change. > > > <We can say change > begun *now*, and explodes into infinity> > > > In speaking of beginning you are marking a moment within time; > > Time itself is dependent upon change as is the notion of beginning. > > > > >And now *is* a moment in > time, only that there is only now, the only time is now> > > > There are two ways of speaking of Now; > > Now, as within time, as the way it is normally spoken of by people, > like I am going shopping now, it marks a reference within time. > > NOW, as the 'eternal' 'outside of time', that is spoken of by sages > and what you are normally speaking about which has nothing to do with > time. But I see the now and the NOW as the same thing. Science may begin to catch up with Julian Barbour somewhere in the future and recognize that time is an illusion, just as the flat earth is an illusion. > > > >So, time is > not a line starting in some past going into the future and the now > being a moment in this time line, rather, the time line is in the now. > > Yes, now is not a line going backward and forward. > If this is the eternal now we are speaking of then it has nothing to > do with time and time is 'within' it yes. > > > > > > > 'Reality' IS *and* is NOT. > > > > > > What is is and cannot be made into what is not. > > > > > > What IS? > > > > When we say that something is, it is only a phenomenal or existence > > reality that we can refer to, yet all phenomenon are unreal. > > > > When we speak of something, reality being or reality IS, then we > must > > say *Nothing IS*, meaning phenomenon and things that makes up > > reality, the cosmos, nothing is inherently real of itself. > > > > The immutable, eternal, thusness is not a *thing* it cannot be > > described as belonging to any realm of reality, it is NOT. > > It is the Ayn of the Kabbalists, the void of the Buddhists, > Sunyata, > > The Sufis fana 'l fana, Lao Tze's 'void filled to the brim'. > > > > What is, is NOTHING IS, i.e no thing has any independent real > > existence. > > > > The immutable, unchanging REALity is NOT because it is no > > such 'thing', we can call it thusness, but it has no reality that > we > > can PhenomenonLIZE. > > > > Saying what is IS, is a self contradiction as we understand and use > > language. > > > > Is it any wonder all those Zen fellows used to hit people with > sticks > > as soon as they opened their mouths ! > > <I don't mean 'what is' like some 'thing' being pointed to. I mean > what is is, like 'all that is - simply is'> > > > Saying something IS points to the existence of something. > > All is not nothing. ALL is, as opposed to is not; > > It is a metaphysical contradiction in saying 'All that is, is' > because all that is, is nothing IS, and all that truly '''is''' is > NOT. > > Existence and non-existence; Reality both IS ( Nothing *IS* ) and IS > NOT. I don't follow you here. I just say that what is is and nothing else is. > > > > > > > <What is, cannot cease to be> > > > > > > > > > > > > What ''''is'''', has never *been*, nor can ever *become* ( > > > anything ). > > > > > > > > To speak of things ( phenomenon ) as 'something IS' ; > > > > > > > > *Nothing IS* > > > > > > When I say " what is " , I mean what is and nothing else than that. > > > > > > When you say what is? What do you mean? > > > > If you mean phenomenon; nothing IS. > > If you mean the immutable *unknowable*, it cannot be described as > > something and it is NOT. > > > > >I don't mean 'what is' like some 'thing' being pointed to. I mean > what is is, like 'all that is - simply is'.> > > > All that is - simply IS ( nothing *IS* ), AND is NOT. Is not? > > > > > > > > Objects can be moved, from the coffee table to the sofa. > > > > > > Moving a cell phone from the coffee table to the sofa happens. > > Think > > > of reality as a movie already complete now, and all we are doing > > now > > > is observing this 'movie' unfold. The movie is *already* 'made' > and > > > cannot be altered. > > > > > > The 'movie' is not already pre-recorded. > > The movie is being enacted NOW, and includes all choices and > > possibilities. > > >That's what you believe, and it may be so, but it is only a belief, > just as my pre-recorded theory is also only a belief.> > > > Does God accomodate both yes and nos, for no purpose? > > *It is only from *within* time that choice happens* That was an interesting view. Meditate on this I will. ;-) > > > > > > > > No you, no me, no God, no anyone is doing anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are me are DOing, so are many other different beings. > > > > > > > > God, if you mean totality cannot and does not do. > > > > > > Doing happens as a part of the movie of life already made> > > > > Doing happens live as it arises within the whole, any doing or > change > > creates time ( the past ). > > We cannot act from the future. > > <I think the future causes the past> > > > Do you believe that we act from the future? Yes. That's pretty interesting. " You didn't come here to make a choice, you have already made it, and now you must understand it. " -- The Oracle, in one of the Matrix movies > > > > > There are DOers. > > > > *The whole unity does not make itself what it is* > > > > Nor does it *act on itself*, think or DO. > > <I disagree, but that is only my belief I admit> > > > Can *wholeness* act on itself? > > Can *immanence* will itself? Wholeness is, and that is *all* there is. This wholeness is changeless and does not act. There is no acting going on. There is some happening going on, but that happening is a *single* changeless event. You have already made the choice. :-) > > > > >Similarly, the physical world happening has *already* > > > been 'made' - it is complete and changeless. > > > > If you mean as a pre-recorded fixed thing that cannot be changed to > > include possibility within time change from moment to moment then > no. > > > > If you mean as something which encompasses all possibilities within > > time then yes. > > >If there is real change then there must be a first change, but is > there a first change?> > > > Speaking of *first* change is putting the time cart before the > phenomenon horse. First or last have no meaning when what is happening is an atomic event (by atomic I mean undivisible). /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2004 Hi again, > When we are thinking we are thinking, when we look at something we > are looking at something, has awareness itself changed? <No, awareness is forever the same> Forever is ( in ) time, is awareness time dependent? >What awareness experiences varies in an infinite number of variations. Without variation and limitation to what awareness can focus on in any given instance, life would be utterly boring. > I don't think 'boredom' is 'the' or 'an' issue here >The All looking at the All forever - how boring is that? :-)> How can the *ALL* look at *itself*? > In other words, clarity of perception, stillness, balance etc are not > dependent causes for awareness to shine nor do they or their presence > reveal pure awareness ( any better ). <That right. Awareness is forever pure and the same. It is the obstacles and the contractions called the ego> The ego is not eobstacles and contractionsf The ego is a concept or label we use to describe the working mind that thinks of itself as an individual; that things happen to, that serves itself and the body it thinks it is. The ego is not *only* 'present' with negative emotions and thoughts, the ego is *present* and *necessary* and working in the presence of positive emotions 'just as much' as it is in the presence of negative ones. >that has to loosen up a bit (but not go away altogether, because the sense [illusion] of separation is what makes life interesting)> What makes life interesting? > the sense of seperation? Well for one thing, the ego must be present to make life interesting. Interesting is a particular human trait, it is different for each individual also. > Is awareness ever trapped? > Does it *need* to be liberated? > Is awareness a thing that can be spoken of as being able to be > liberated? > > This is conceptualization again about a belief held, and what > enlightenment is *TO* a ME. <Yes, when awareness experience itself in the human form> How can awareness experience itself as anything? >more often than not, there is fear and fear takes as being 'real' is a form of a cage> Any fear is and can only be brought about by a ME, and a ME can just as easily not experience fear. This is the importance of self knowledge or introspection. *What is fear, who experiences it, and why?* 'Fear' is only *one* emotion that has been selected for investigation or more correctly *blamed* as a cause to explain a belief, or the borrowings of anotherfs ideas about things, like a quoted source, sage or prophet that has also blamed fear as a being a cause. > >A person is completely powerless> > > > If *you* believe that, then a ME is bound, if *you* don't believe > that a ME is bound. > > The power that you are denying is the power that allows you *to* deny > and to *not* deny, in both cases a ME is bound. <A person is completely powerless> You are exercising the power you are denying, and for either belief of a ME, a ME is a necessary; It asserts it's own existence and is bound, it asserts that it is powerless, it is bound. <God is the only power> What is God? > As humans we do have the power of decision and choice and so on, it > is a part of makes us this unique type of being. <A human being is being *done* by the universe> What makes the universe ( whole ) what it is? *The whole does not make *itself* what it is* The whole cannot will, act or plan A human being is ( a part of universe ) and a part of what makes the universe what it IS. >A human being cannot do anything by itself> There is no-one else that can do anything *for* a human being. >because the 'me' is a divine hypnosis brought about by the universe in order for life to happen> It is a ME that says so; A ME has made the above assertion and that ME asserts itfs own existence. <So, sure, there are choices made, but only as a game played by the universe on itself> The universe cannot act on itself. *The whole does not make itself what it is*. The whole cannot will. <There is no 'you' other than what the universe makes 'you'. :- )> The universe does not make a ME, a ME is a part of the universe and what it is. The universe cannot *make or do* anything. >Sorry, you have no choice, you have no volition - in fact, there never has been a 'you', and there never will be a 'you'> We do have choice, this capacity is part of what makes us unique as the type of being we are. There is a you ( a ME ) doing and acting, and this doing and acting is not possible without this ME. >All is one wholeness acting> The whole cannot ACT. >All is One Will. All is the Will of God. ;-) No, the whole cannot think, act, do, or will. > > >Knowledge cannot > > > reach this state. > > > > Knowledge, intellect and thinking are a part of the apparent > > phenomenon, 'like' anything else. > > <Yes, knowledge may be a part of reaching this state> > > > Thinking can help immensely so long as it is completely thrown away > later. >Yes! That is what I believe. Thinking is a *game* needed initially in order for the One to experience itself as the Many.> Thinking is needed 'initially', in the middle and after. 'Before enlightenment; chop wood carry water, after enlightenment; chop wood carry water' Saying that thinking is the cause of the manifestation of the 'many' or that thinking is needed in order for the One to experience itself as many, is simply a belief held by a ME to explain. Thinking does not split one into many. > > Have you experienced what *you* call space consciousness and how do > > you recognize this space consciousness as that which you call it? > > Does this thing that you term space consciousness happen in levels > > where it begins to dawn? > > <However, I have seen that there are states where my perception > becomes clearer and thinking fades away> > > > And this is what you call space consciousness beginning to dawn? <Space consciousness dawns when you *actually* see that there is more to you than the 'you', when the present moment deepens and liberates you a bit from the ego> So you experienced what you call 'space consciousness'? What is liberated from the ego when you say; 'liberates *you* a bit from the ego'? Saying that it liberates eyou from the egof is a contradiction. >The ego is 'object consciousness' hooked into itself as a form of 'me'. When you become aware of the fact that there is more to this moment than the empty nothingness the ego wants to make of it, then you begin to loosen up, then fear begins to melt> Why focus on something as specific as fear? You ( a ME ) is experiencing fear, and it takes a ME to experience fear, what is the ME afraid OF? > >And when this happens, there > >is awareness of something more than just objects and thoughts.> > > > More phenomenal or more subtle? <More subtle, as in finer grained reality. A vastness that is the result of a more fine grained view where 'objects' become loosened up a bit by a spacious clarity> Do you mean that; You are perceiving reality to be more subtle? You have a feeling that reality is more subtle? or That this is your interpretation of what you think reality is like? Is this referring to the actual reality of what you are perceiving, your interpretation of what you are perceiving, or what you think it would be like if you did perceive what you are *anticipating*? > > If *you* ( a ME ) are claiming you have experienced anything or > > realized something then it is mental phenomenon of a ME and > > illusionary. > > <In the sense that all memories are not reality happening now, yes> > > > No, in the sense that a ME is claiming that it has realized > something; > > *That ME is saying that IT is bound* >What makes a ME is the memories, knowledge and experiences of the world and a 'me' in relation to that world. This world is only an inner world created by conditionings in relation to inherited human gene structures. Object consciousness is looking at this inner world and the 'me' and cannot see anything else. Space consciousness is the ability to see that this inner world is only a limited fragment of what is> *If a ME is claiming anything or claiming realization that ME is bound* Can a ME attain? A ME that says eI have realizedf, eI have found Godfis saying it is bound. It might be more apt in the case of really realizedf persons to say; eGod has found ME'. > <One has to observe all that is happening, even oneself an an > observer.> > > > This is another expectation of what should a ME should or has to do; > > Who is the one that has to observe? > Who is the one's self that is the observER? <The realization is that there is awareness and 'objects' this awareness is aware of. When this is realized, then awareness begins to be liberated, because the 'objects' is not the whole picture> Who is the one that has to observe? Who is the one's self that is the observER? > How can awareness be trapped in an ego cage? > Was awareness ever bound? > > *It is a ME including ego that is affirming that *awareness* is > trapped in a !concept! ( ego )* > > Like an image saying that the mirror is trapped by an image. <Yes, awareness is trapped in an image called 'me' and the 'world'> How can awareness by trapped by 'anything'? <This cage is nothing but a very limited cage, a tiny fragment of what is.> The cage is nothing but a concept to explain a belief or construct an explanation. > >And awareness can be > free from that prison. Awareness is simply awareness, but there can > be shallow and fragmented awareness> > > > How can awareness be fragmented? > How many awareness's are there? <Awareness is one and forever free. It is the *illusion* of the ego that makes awareness feel trapped and fragmented.> Does *awareness* feel trapped? > >and there can be liberated, deep > and non-fragmented awareness. > > > Does awareness become liberated? <Yes, when the ego cage is blown away> How can awareness which is not bound be liberated? The ego cage or ego does not need to be blown away, nor can it be. As I said 'getting rid of an ego' can *seem* 'like a good idea' or panacea to solve the problems associated with the thing we call an ego. We hear sages and prophets say things like God = man minus ego, everyone then thinks; Well if I just get rid of the ego I will be GOD. In people we call '''realized''' an ego is still present. > If the goal is near, the goal still exists, a ME is still striving > and a ME still bound. > > *If enlightenment is a goal to be reached, if there is something to > be attained then a ME is bound* <Yes, the ME is bound all the way *until* liberation happens> **If there is *goal* to be reached, *something* to be achieved, or an *expectation* of something to achieve, a ME is bound** > >So I believe one just have to > >enjoy/endure the ride> > > > The difference between endure and enjoy depends on 'your own mind'. <Your 'own' mind *is* the cage> Our minds or ego is not something that we must fight, hate or dislike, we have to learn to *understand* our minds and how they work. It is not necessary to think of the mind in a negative way or to try and kill an ego. You mind can be your greatest enemy, just as much as it can be your greatest asset, and it all depends to what degree of understanding you have of how your mind operates and how much you control and awareness you have regarding it. > >Seeking will happen or stop according to God's > >plan. > > > What is 'your' relationship to God? > > There is no GOD to be *found* or to make a plan for *YOU* to realize > the illusion of enlightenment. <I believe God can be found through prayer and sincere devotion.> To whom ( to which phenomenon or being ) will you address your devotion? **How can I salute the formless being who fills all this with his self and also fills the self with his self** There are many 'Gods' all equally as real as you or me, and worshipping a personal God is one way of approaching God. I don't mean to say that symbolic worship, or devotion to a certain deity is not a sincere or worthwhile practice, it is another way of approaching the divine. One can approach God in a dualistic relationship, where a deity is prayed to, invoked, and so on. Yet ask the phenomenal God, *Who* he, she or it is?; So long as there is a knower and an object ( phenomenon ) to be known, you have not seen God. There is a Tibetan saying, 'Even a dogs tooth will glow if shown enough reverence'. <God, according to me, is the Self, or the All> You just created him and made him separate from you. 'God *according to ME* is ....?' *How can I salute the formless being who fills all this with his self and also fills the self with his self* <Self-realization is the realization that God is everything and that everything is interconnected in One wholeness, One will> If you call God everything, then yes there is NOTHING that is not God Wholeness doesn't and cannot will. > For what you call Autopilot III: > > The whole cannot act think or do, it IS, and the doing both with and > without mindfulness is the functioning of the whole. >What I call Autopilot III *is* 100% mindfulness, a total action, not a fragmented action in the form of some childish separate will. ;-)>> Autopilot III, the wholeness as a whole is not mindfulness, mindfulness is a specific term, and only applies to thinking beings which can watch their behaviour and actions, and use this knowledge to act with greater wisdom, the whole cannot think, act or do. Is calling a seperate will 'childish' to show that you consider a human will to be somehow inferior to another higher will? > No-thing is self aware, we do not own '''our''' awareness and we are > not responsible for its existence, > there is no-THING that is self-aware, no could there ever BE anything > phenomenal self-aware. > This is the Buddhists no-self doctrine. > > **God owns the person not the other way around** <We are not responsible for *anything*. Individual responsibility is a childish ego notion.> We are 100% responsible for our lives and what we do. Life takes us gently by the hand every day of our lives, try being 'irresponsible' and see how quickly that gentle hand turns stern, it will lead you in another direction very very quickly. *God cannot brush your teeth for you* <And, yes, no-thing is self-aware. *ALL* there is, is no-thing happening> No-THING is self aware. > This is more conceptualizing about expectations of what will avoid > conflict > to *solve* the 'problem' a ME feels has got to solved > because it has *selected* conflict as an *appropriate problem* to > which it will now find a solution to. >The whole is love in action, creating itself> What is love? What is love in action? The above is ( seems like ) an appropriate notion for the whole? >This is the One Will Only with One Will can there be true peace and fearless joy. (See A Course in Miracles)> The whole cannot will. Reading books and making a patchwork of *others* concepts and beliefs can only lead to confusion because the way they use the same terms does not always agree with how you use and think of them. All teachers and all masters whether realized or not also have an inherentness within them as reflected selves and every single teaching and teacher has a definite personal bias that cannot be compatible with your own inner nature. > >All separation will always contain an inherent potential for > conflict> > > > All seperation will contain an inherent potential for love. <Separation is needed on the level of appearance in order for there to be some interesting stuff happening> So seperation exists so that interesting things can happen? This is a conception needed in order to *explain* this to yourself ( a ME ). >but the *deep* relation between separate 'entities' is no separation at all> Again, Chuang Tzu; *The BEing of *seperate* beings is non-seperate BEing* > Why select any narrow specific belief and then give such equally > narrow assumptions for it's causes? >Separation is narrowing down the All, and this separation is needed in order to create the One and the Many> I was talking about your selecting of specific beliefs and equally specific assumptions used to explain beliefs held. This does not create the one and the many. >But the fundamental truth that 'All is one' is the next step for humanity to take.> No Any talk of truth, fundamental truth, absolute truth, is a subjectification. > >Only when there is One Will can there be separation and no > conflict at the same time> > > > 'One will' is another remedy for what will stop conflict; or > specifically *for you*, what you think will stop conflict. > > The whole cannot will, act on itself, or do. >The whole *is* what is happening now> The whole is the whole, are you sure it is just what is happening 'now'? If you mean now as the eternal NOW then yes. >That's *all* there is. You don't have a separate 'you', you only *think* you do> *What a ME is, and what makes a ME what it IS, is what makes a ME a *seperate* thing* >And even this thinking is the whole happening now, see?> There is nothing outside of mind, thinking included, > What clashes? <The illusion of having separate wills will always result in conflict> What about when there is no conflict? >If there is no conflict, then there *is* no separate will, but only one will.> In conflict or harmony both MEs exists. Again, what about when there is no conflict, you seem to think that will is dependent upon there being conflict? The whole cannot will. > >Only when there is One > Will will there be peace.> > > > The whole cannot will. <The whole happening is what is happening now> The whole is not the cause of this happening, nor does it act on itself. >The separate 'you' is an illusion 'created' by the whole happening now as the 'one and the many'> A you ( ME ) is seperate, the whole does not cause or create anything. > > Is wanting the reason conflict arises? > > Again, this is a very narrowly *selected assumption*. > > Conflict can arise for many reasons. > > There is no benefit in selecting a narrow specific belief then > > attributing that belief as the sole cause of something happening. > > <Conflict can only cease when there is One Will> > > > Again, the whole cannot will. >The whole is all there is. Even the movement down to the smallest atom is *oneness* in motion.> There is *nothing* outside of mind, you name it itfs there . > >But > I suspect that there is only One Mind, and only One Will. > > > What about A mind, THE mind, MY mind, ONE mind? > > There is no whole's will. >All there is is One Mind.> *Whilst it is true that the ALL is in all, it is equally true that all is in the ALL* Beware the half truth. > You have already defined space consciousness previously and given > indicative conditions of how one might recognize when this > consciousness is 'beginning to dawn'? > > You are saying now that space consciousness is what you *believe* to > be the false idea of having a merely seperate consciousness? >It can also be that when space consciousness is realized fully, then there will be no 'separate' consciousness at all.> Is your space consciousness that you conceptualize something you have realized? > Seperation is the *nature* of the manifestation at the physical level. > It could not be otherwise. >Yes, separation is needed in order to create any experience, but when the deep connection of oneness is lacking, there will be conflict and suffering> There will be love and acceptance. > <It's like looking at a room and not notice the space > *between* things. When you look at the computer in front of you, are > you aware of the space between you and the screen?> > > > Yes. >Only when I pointed it out to you. :-) > No, we are aware of space, whether it is pointed out or not. We do not go on to *think* about these *concepts* unless someone points them out. > > *It is only mind that is dividing and making 2 minds* > then > merging > > them to have no conflict in pure awareness. > > > > This is no different to narrating a story as explanations are given > > as the story unfolds to accomodate initial beliefs. > > It is only assumptions or beliefs of what expectations a ME has > > of 'what will happen' ( to it ) or something that it has > > conceptualized as space consciousness. > > <I like the practise to be aware of space, outer and inner> > > > Yes, clear awareness of *both* the inner and the outer; are these 2? >Yes, awareness of outer space is the deep sense of 3D reality (even thought our eyes only give 2D projections), and the inner space is when thinking is loosened up a bit and some clarity is revealed *between* the dense thought structures. I think you are *thinking* about this too much. Do you really see eloosening and clarity between dense thought structuresf? How many spaces are there? > >and to be > aware of timeless silence as a background/container for all > experiences.> > > Can one be aware of timeless silence? <Yes. When the restless time sense is seen through> Can *one* be aware of timeless silence? How? > > The minute one starts to *provide* explanations for why things like > > conflict arise, one then find reasons why that must be so and the > > vagueness of more asumptions increase to explain previous ones. > > > > If the first is only guessing what can be gained by more thinking, > > except the further binding of a ME. > > > > What needs to or can melt? > > <Conflict will always be the result of separate wills> > > > They have to be seperate first, then they have to have a will, then > they ... >Yes, there must be separation in order for experience to happen. The All exploding into infinite separation, and the collects itself back again as the One and the Many. There can be only One. Yet, this one can play the game of being many. :-)> You are writing a creation story, our current mythology. > <The bigges > conflict is the inner conflict caused by different thoughts/emotions > competing with each other internally in an ordinary person> > > > Why does this conflict occurr? >Because of 'wants'. The 'want' in you that wins will be what you will find yourself doing. If you for example want to watch TV, but you know that you should do the dishes first, then there is a conflict between 'watching TV' and 'doing the dishes', and pride, guilt, responsibility, and pleaseure seeking will compete *internally* in you and this is the seed of conflict and suffering.> What about then there is no wanting and conflict still occurs? This is selecting narrow causes as to the reasons for such broad issues as conflict. > >This > conflict is what *creates* the ego> > > > No, this does not create the ego. > The ego is there in conflict or no conflict, harmony or peace. <When you *really* enjoy yourself, then the ego is not there> No, the ego *is* there, otherwise you couldn't enjoy yourself. >then the 'past you' and the 'future you' is not there. < And the ego *is* the 'past you' and the 'future you'> The ego is a concept or idea we give to the working mind that thinks of itself as an individual thing and includes emotions and thinking etc, and yes thoughts about the past and future are included within what we call the ego, but they are not themselves the ego. > > > >and this conflict is almost like > a separate entity which Eckhart Tolle calles the pain body, and what > Ken Wilber calls the ego contraction in the body> > > > You don't need the crutch of Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle to tell *YOU > about you*. >That's true, but these persons have their versions of describing the pain body, and I don't feel it is nescessary for me to create more definitions. Well, I do have another term for this, and I call it the 'time body', just to feel that I can contribute with something new, which will give me a sense of 'humble' pride. :-)> As I said above every ME has an inherentness within them that can never be compatible with your own inner nature, reading material and thinking can help immensely but it can also confuse and just contribute to thinking going around and around or simply just more thinking. Any thinking binds a ME. > In fact the sad thing is that these people sometimes take away the > power of self transformation and empowerment of change from > people who become dependent on them and *their concepts and ideas*. > > Ken Wilber and Eckhart Tolle can never help you find out about > yourself, the task of introspection and self knowledge falls > squarely on your shoulders should you desire to pursue it. > > ( Complaining or worrying about ) internal strife is *proof* that > introspection has not occurred. >The *real* truth is I believe that there is no difference between me, you , and Eckhart Tolle > There is a difference between all three of us, and what makes us what we are is what makes us different. >and that 'you' think you can do stuff on your own is only ego bullshit. Hahahaha. ;-)> It is only the ME that can do, whether it be Tolle, you or me. > >It is this > contraction that has to melt; it is the idea of separation and the > upholding of this idea that must melt. All conflicts come from this > ego contraction> > > > If there is no internal conflict there is still an ego. <No, because the ego *is* the conflict between what is and 'me'> No, the ego is necessary and 'still there' conflict or no conflict, peace or harmony. It is not possible to experience harmony or happiness without an ego, it does not disappear when positive attributes are active or present itself when negative emotions are being experienced, nor is it absent in ''''enlightened'''' people An ego does not appear in bad times and disappear in good > If a ME did *not* experience the emotions that you have mentioned > such as boredom, fear, hate would there still be the necessity to get > rid of the ego or to think to have it removed? >When there is peace and joy, then the ego is already gone> No, see above. You cannot get rid of an ego, even when you are happy > > > Getting rid of an ego is a panacea for ego problems like fear, > > boredom, hatred etc, but the ego cannot be gotten rid of, > > nor does the thought of trying to get rid of it *have* to occurr. > > > > If you are capable of fear then why is this so, if you are capable > of > > hate then why since you are also capable of love. > Anyone is capable of love, animals are capable of love. >Osho said that animal love is just hormones in action. An alligator mother protects her children, while the father wants to eat them; he just wants a good breakfast. :-)> Different animals are capable of different types or qualities of love, I don't doubt that instinct plays a very large role in the reptilian brain, but there is no doubt that animals too like the beings we are are capable of love in varying degrees over a very broad range of type and quality. We are not special either, and the difference between us and the animals exists in the same degree of difference or even greater in the difference between individual species of animals. > > It is the degree or *quality* that differs. > > In ordinary people I agree, they are not capable of higher love; > > They *are capable* of higher love, just not *in their present state*, > ( which can change ). > > This is different to saying people are not capable of love. >I think J. Krishnamurti was on to something. What we normally call love is just the liking of our own internal *images*> Yes, in ordinary selfless love it is through our own muddy filter. > >Real love is fearless. As long > >as the illusion called the ego is there, love will be absent. > > > Again, you cannot get rid of an ego, nor do you have to think that > you have to, it is a contradiction in terms. > > We are perfectly capable of loving with a fully intact and > functioning ego >When there is fear there will not be true love> When there is a nasty itch there will not be true love. > > If you examine your mind and find out why these thoughts and > feelings > > arise, why these thoughts and emotions arise instead of those > > feelings you are associating with what you seek to experience ( for > > *whatever* reason ) then you can change your thinking and emotions. > > > > If thoughts are arising that you don't deem healthy then isn't the > > first step thorough introspection to find out why these thoughts > > arise? > > >Thinking is mostly a result of resisting what is> > > > Thinking is not the result of resisting what is, this is another > *narrowly selected* belief. >Thinking is not needed> Thinking *is* needed! >Thinking is just a filtered 'view' of what is going on. Thinking itself cannot do anything> Thinking is DOing and affecting you right now and your whole life, you are what you are because of your thinking, thought patterns and how you see and think about yourself, your own self image. >This view is from the ego viewpoint focused on protecting itself and this creates a rigid internal mind structure that consequently will always be in conflict with reality, because reality is flowing and not rigid> > I am talking about finding causes within *yourself* if you are > feeling anger, hate, etc instead of those traits that you deem > to be more desirable. >But you see, 'yourself' *is* all these billion years of evolution> No, you and me were never dinosaurs. If you are feeling the traits you have mentioned you can find out why you are feeling them and then change them. There is no eexcusef to blame fear when you can investigate itfs manifestation within yourself. eFearf also has been used or blamed as a cause to explain beliefs held. It may not even be that you yourself are experiencing these emotions but simply that they have been noted as blanket causes by you. > >J. Krishnamurti said that > analysis is an endless process, that no analysis will ever be > complete. It is fairly easy to see that this is true> > > > Are you following his counsel? <I think of it from time to time. I think analysis will be needed as long as it is needed, and when it is no longer needed it may still be there for some time just because old thought structures maybe don't go away immediately> Analysis is a never ending process, because we have an infinite amount to analyse > Do you think that *what is*, accomodates the potential for change? >What is *is* potential for change, and this change is happening now> What is IS ( and is not ), not prefixed with anything. Do you think that what is accomodates potential for change within? >But there is no past, and no future - this change happening now is a *single* atomic event> There is a past and future, this is how we understand the manifestation of time. >How can a single atomic event change?> How can there be a single event? > There are two ways of speaking of Now; > > Now, as within time, as the way it is normally spoken of by people, > like I am going shopping now, it marks a reference within time. > > NOW, as the 'eternal' 'outside of time', that is spoken of by sages > and what you are normally speaking about which has nothing to do with > time. >But I see the now and the NOW as the same thing> The eternal NOW has nothing to do with time, now with small letters marks a moment within time, and is what we normally speak about in the conventional sense. One notion refers to being / space the other marks a point within the perceived flow of time. >Science may begin to catch up with Julian Barbour somewhere in the future and recognize that time is an illusion, just as the flat earth is an illusion> I have not read much about his theories only a small bit that you sent on a webpage. > <I don't mean 'what is' like some 'thing' being pointed to. I mean > what is is, like 'all that is - simply is'> > > > Saying something IS points to the existence of something. > > All is not nothing. ALL is, as opposed to is not; > > It is a metaphysical contradiction in saying 'All that is, is' > because all that is, is nothing IS, and all that truly '''is''' is > NOT. > > Existence and non-existence; Reality both IS ( Nothing *IS* ) and IS > NOT. >I don't follow you here. I just say that what is is and nothing else is> It is not *enough* to say, what is is. Because what is cannot BE, without 'what' is NOT. And, saying what is IS is a contradiction in that nothing truly IS, like a coffee cup, so when we say what is IS > then No-thing IS ( of itself REAL ). Saying reality IS and is NOT is pointing to the inherent non- existence of anyTHING and the non-existence as a thing of that which is called the void etc, such that fffitfff is no phenomenal ethingf that can be OBJECTIFIED or phenomenaLIZED. The 'thing'( which IS NOT ) that scriptures refer to as the void, sunyata, the Ayn etc is NOT. > >I don't mean 'what is' like some 'thing' being pointed to. I mean > what is is, like 'all that is - simply is'.> > > > All that is - simply IS ( nothing *IS* ), AND is NOT. <Is not?> See above section. > Do you believe that we act from the future? <Yes. That's pretty interesting. " You didn't come here to make a choice, you have already made it, and now you must understand it. " -- The Oracle, in one of the Matrix movies> If the oracle from the matrix movie said it then... > > There are DOers. > > > > *The whole unity does not make itself what it is* > > > > Nor does it *act on itself*, think or DO. > > <I disagree, but that is only my belief I admit> > > > Can *wholeness* act on itself? > > Can *immanence* will itself? <Wholeness is, and that is *all* there is. This wholeness is changeless and does not act> Yes, the whole doesn't, can't act or do. <There is no acting going on> There is acting going on and this acting is what makes the whole what it is. The whole cannot act, act on *itself* or make *itself* what it is. >There is some happening going on> Yes. >but that happening is a *single* changeless event> There is no such thing as single event. If you are talking of the whole there is the whole. >You have already made the choice. :-)> No, choices are made *within* time, not ahead, not before, not outside. > >If there is real change then there must be a first change, but is > there a first change?> > > > Speaking of *first* change is putting the time cart before the > phenomenon horse. >First or last have no meaning when what is happening is an atomic event (by atomic I mean undivisible).> I was commenting on your statement, see above. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
