Guest guest Report post Posted August 3, 2004 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. Who or what then discriminates between these different levels of being? What observer? > > 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> What observer and what observed? Are these 2 two? > > 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. How then can an explanation which includes what are only beliefs and concepts, yet speaks of them as being real, be a worthwhile pursuit to a ME? > > Consciousness gets enlightened? > > Consciousness waking up from the dream of having been a separate > individual. Has consciousness ever been a seperate individual? > > 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> People, human beings, are not ripples in consciousness. >It is consciousness *itself* who is > conscious, a ripple cannot be conscious. If you define consciousness as 'all there is', then consciousness is not conscious. Ramesh Balsekar and others have said 'All there is is consciousness' consciousness then is not conscious. >Your brain/body is not > conscious> Yes. >*You* are not your brain/body, you are not even your > memories. You are the one consciousness. You are the One. :-) I am not 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. Yes, there is *nothing* outside of mind. Spacially, ontologically, completely. > Now is a moment in time, and time begun now> There are 2 ways of speaking of 'Now'; Now as marking a moment in time, in which case it is within time and time has not *begun* Or NOW, that has nothing to do with time, the 'eternal NOW' that sages speak of, which has more to do with space. > > >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 dream is different to the waking state. A dream is not a *perception* like the waking state through the sense organs. When objects manifest in the physical world they exist as different levels of mind, and this is what we perceive partially through our physical senses, when we dream it is the unconscious generating or releasing images, but objects and elements of a dream are not manifest like objects in the physical world. I.e Objects that occurr in the dream state do not exist over different levels of mental matter like objects in the physical world. In this sense a dream, all of it, is *one* object only. > A stone in the dream, is that > stone not a part of the dream? Yes, a stone in a dream is a part of it. >When you wake up in the morning, can > you take the stone you experienced in your dream and put in your > pocket? Dreams are compared by mystics to the waking state to show that *awareness* is 'alive' in all states, not to compare an object in a dream with an object perceived in the waking state through mind / body sense apparatus. Again, the entire dream is one 'object' produced by the psyche. A stone exists over different levels of mind and it's different manifestation over these levels going 'upwards' is what makes it a seperate and different thing. > > Jesus was not enlightened, Jesus was a ME. > > He dropped the ego and became enlightened. This happened as > everything does: automatically. You cannot 'drop an ego'. There is no-one who has been enlightened, including Jesus, and, there is no-one that *can* be. > > 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. Mindfulness is about becoming aware of thoughts so that you are firstly aware of how much influence they have over your life. Then to become aware so as to not allow thoughts to occurr that you do not want, knowing from practicing mindfulness and / or introspection which thoughts are detrimental and which thoughts aren't and the effects of these thoughts. Thoughts and thinking craft our lives, they paint the picture, mindfulness is about knowing what makes a beautiful picture and creating the picture you *want*, consciously using thoughts to make the most beautiful picture you can, instead of flicking paint, finger painting, smearing images, or throwing mud. > > 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? ;-) A leaf, nor the wind has the power of will or decision, mind in this case is not organized with the capacity such as human beings have. There are no independent arisings like a leaf blowing or a cloud moving, there is no singular causation; a leaf moving does not and cannot appear as an independent event. When we talk about singular causations we *select* events from out of a *continuum*. > > 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. Being the beings we are we have to live within 'laws', if you want to call them that. Because I want to flap my wings and fly like a bird, or breath under water, doesn't mean I can. These 'laws' are laws of mind, they are structure. > 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'). The reality that you call 'changeless' contains all possibilities. > > <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 ME that sees time and thinks about time is itself within time. Saying that I see time as ... is a ME speaking from within it with a view to explaining a belief about it. >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. Times arrows are the behaviour of phenomenon. Time has no direction, it is abitrary. > 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 following this advice? Ironically is this advice that one can follow? > > > > 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 What observer? ***The cause of your bondage is that you see the witness as something other than this*** > > >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. :-) How many selves are there? > > So the Self is the ALL aware of itself? > > Well, the Self is an infinite number of different view points in the > All. So the Self is an infinite number of different viewpoints in the ALL? > > How do you use a wave function? > > The wave function is just a mathematical description used in for > example quantum physics to model reality. So, how are *you* using it? > > 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. Yes. So by points do you mean everything? like a snapshot of the whole moment by moment? Or spacial points? > > 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. How can we see a wave function as a pattern in consciousness, other than a conceptualization of belief? > > > 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. What is the relationship between a wave function and a happening? > > >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 not consciousness either. Who is this WE? > > >we are timeless awareness from unique points of > > > views being experienced now> > > > > Again, we are not timeless awareness. > > We are the One. :-) No, we are not the One. 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, > > > > > 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. > > Who or what then discriminates between these different levels of > being? > What observer? The different levels are what is being observed. The observer is timeless. > > > > > 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> > > > What observer and what observed? > Are these 2 two? Not two; they are one, just like the ocean and the waves are one. The ocean is the observer and the waves the observed. > > > > > > 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. > > > How then can an explanation which includes what are only beliefs and > concepts, yet speaks of them as being real, be a worthwhile pursuit > to a ME? *All* is worthwile, or nothing is. > > > > > Consciousness gets enlightened? > > > > Consciousness waking up from the dream of having been a separate > > individual. > > Has consciousness ever been a seperate individual? Yes, we are the One Consciousness experiencing itself as separate human beings right now. > > > > > 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> > > > People, human beings, are not ripples in consciousness. They are. At least according to my concept (to use Ramesh Balsekar's words): " I keep on saying 'my concept' for this reason: it is not the truth. Whatever *any* sage has said at *any* time. Whatever *any* religion has said at *any* time. Whatever *any* scripture has said at *any* time, is a concept. " > > > >It is consciousness *itself* who is > > conscious, a ripple cannot be conscious. > > > If you define consciousness as 'all there is', then consciousness is > not conscious. > Ramesh Balsekar and others have said 'All there is is consciousness' > consciousness then is not conscious. > > > >Your brain/body is not > > conscious> > > > Yes. Your brain/body *is* consciousness expressing itself. > > > >*You* are not your brain/body, you are not even your > > memories. You are the one consciousness. You are the One. :-) > > I am not the One. Hehe. Maybe you are a human body that will die, and then you will be no more. > > > > > >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. > > > Yes, there is *nothing* outside of mind. > Spacially, ontologically, completely. > > > > Now is a moment in time, and time begun now> > > > There are 2 ways of speaking of 'Now'; > > Now as marking a moment in time, in which case it is within time and > time has not *begun* > > Or NOW, that has nothing to do with time, the 'eternal NOW' that > sages speak of, which has more to do with space. > > > > > >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 dream is different to the waking state. > A dream is not a *perception* like the waking state through the sense > organs. > > When objects manifest in the physical world they exist as different > levels of mind, and this is what we perceive partially through our > physical senses, > when we dream it is the unconscious generating or releasing images, > but objects and elements of a dream are not manifest like objects in > the > physical world. > I.e Objects that occurr in the dream state do not exist over > different levels of mental matter like objects in the physical world. > In this sense a dream, all of it, is *one* object only. The physical world is an illusion, but a very persistent one. :-) I think it was Einstein or some other spiritually inclined person who said this. > > > > A stone in the dream, is that > > stone not a part of the dream? > > Yes, a stone in a dream is a part of it. > > > >When you wake up in the morning, can > > you take the stone you experienced in your dream and put in your > > pocket? > > > Dreams are compared by mystics to the waking state to show that > *awareness* is 'alive' in all states, > not to compare an object in a dream with an object perceived in the > waking state through mind / body sense apparatus. > > Again, the entire dream is one 'object' produced by the psyche. > A stone exists over different levels of mind and it's different > manifestation over these levels going 'upwards' is what > makes it a seperate and different thing. Yes, a stone is very persistent (at least according to my memory). > > > > > Jesus was not enlightened, Jesus was a ME. > > > > He dropped the ego and became enlightened. This happened as > > everything does: automatically. > > > You cannot 'drop an ego'. > There is no-one who has been enlightened, including Jesus, and, there > is no-one that *can* be. The ego is being dropped. Then you will become a 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. > > > Mindfulness is about becoming aware of thoughts so that you are > firstly aware of how much influence > they have over your life. > Then to become aware so as to not allow thoughts to occurr that you > do not want, knowing from > practicing mindfulness and / or introspection which thoughts are > detrimental and which thoughts aren't and the effects of these > thoughts. > > Thoughts and thinking craft our lives, they paint the picture, > mindfulness is about knowing what makes a beautiful picture and > creating the picture you *want*, > consciously using thoughts to make the most beautiful picture you > can, instead of flicking paint, finger painting, smearing images, or > throwing mud. Real artists create from a state of 'flow' that has nothing to do with what we normally call thinking. Even scientists, when they make great discoveries say that the discovery came when they relaxed the thinking mind. > > > > > > 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? ;-) > > A leaf, nor the wind has the power of will or decision, mind in this > case is not organized with the capacity such as human beings have. > There are no independent arisings like a leaf blowing or a cloud > moving, there is no singular causation; a leaf moving does not and > cannot appear as an independent event. > When we talk about singular causations we *select* events from out of > a *continuum*. There is selection going on, yes, but *who* is selecting? According to me the selecting going on is predeterminded, already complete; a singular moment. It is only the ego in you that creates the thoughts: " I want to be an independent selector " , and " See, I am powerful, I can select! " What I am saying is that you are powerless as an individual, and all powerful as the One. > > > > > 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. > > > Being the beings we are we have to live within 'laws', if you want to > call them that. > > Because I want to flap my wings and fly like a bird, or breath under > water, doesn't mean I can. > These 'laws' are laws of mind, they are structure. You cannot think other thoughts than those who are *presented* to you. You cannot make any choice but the choice already made. It's good to feel completely powerless. Yes? No? :-) > > > > 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'). > > > The reality that you call 'changeless' contains all possibilities. Yes, in an absolute state. > > > > > <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 ME that sees time and thinks about time is itself within time. > > Saying that I see time as ... is a ME speaking from within it with a > view to explaining a belief about it. But the ME is a part of what is and cannot be otherwise. :-) > > > > >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. > > Times arrows are the behaviour of phenomenon. > Time has no direction, it is abitrary. This I find an interesting idea. That time has no direction. I think so too, but that the arrow of time is determined by totality unfolding. When human beings become more aware of themselves as part of totality, then maybe humans can begin to make some real miracles happen. > > > > 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 following this advice? > > Ironically is this advice that one can follow? Yes, one can follow this advice. I believe we do have free will because we *must* have free will in order for reality to be what it is. So, if I act according to my free will, then this is a beautiful part of an infinitely complex web of happenings taking place. But if I am changeless, am I then not powerless? No, the changeless can easily contain the all powerful by any standard you want to use. Do you want free will? You got it. Do you want to pray to God? You got it. Do you want to *be* God. Sorry, can't do that, God is already complete in its infinite love and intelligence. :-) > > > > > > > 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 > > > What observer? You and me, and everybody, right now - the One Observer. > > ***The cause of your bondage is that you see the witness as something > other than this*** > > > > > > >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. :-) > > > How many selves are there? One Self, infinite number of selves (or souls). > > > > > So the Self is the ALL aware of itself? > > > > Well, the Self is an infinite number of different view points in > the > > All. > > > So the Self is an infinite number of different viewpoints in the ALL? Plus the timeless observation of all different viewpoints. > > > > > How do you use a wave function? > > > > The wave function is just a mathematical description used in for > > example quantum physics to model reality. > > > So, how are *you* using it? As an atoming definition. By atomic I mean undivisible. > > > > > 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. > > > Yes. > So by points do you mean everything? like a snapshot of the whole > moment by moment? > Or spacial points? A point is the nothingness talked about in spiritual scriptures. A point is not a 'thing', it is rather a no-thing, but not nothing! > > > > > 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. > > > How can we see a wave function as a pattern in consciousness, other > than a conceptualization of belief? We can't. :-) (at least not on an ordinary level of thinking) > > > > > > 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. > > > What is the relationship between a wave function and a happening? The wave function *is* the happening. The two cannot be separated. > > > > > >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 not consciousness either. > Who is this WE? The One Consciousness. > > > > > >we are timeless awareness from unique points of > > > > views being experienced now> > > > > > > Again, we are not timeless awareness. > > > > We are the One. :-) > > > No, we are not the One. Sorry, I meant the One and the Many. :-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2004 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. > > Who or what then discriminates between these different levels of > being? > What observer? <The different levels are what is being observed> How can these different levels be observed if awareness cannot discriminate? >The observer is timeless> What observer? > > > 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> > > > What observer and what observed? > Are these 2 two? <Not two; they are one, just like the ocean and the waves are one. The ocean is the observer and the waves the observed> If the observer and the observed are one then there is no observer *and* observed. > > > 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. > > > How then can an explanation which includes what are only beliefs and > concepts, yet speaks of them as being real, be a worthwhile pursuit > to a ME? >*All* is worthwile, or nothing is> The ALL cannot be prefixed with anything; worthwhile, holy, pleasant, nice or even infinite. The ''ALL'' IS, (( and is NOT )) any further qualification is subjectification. Under the assumption that a ME is striving ( to explain, for enlightenment etc ); How can explanations which treat concepts as being real be of any 'benefit' to a ME when *all* thinking binds a ME to itself? > > > Consciousness gets enlightened? > > > > Consciousness waking up from the dream of having been a separate > > individual. > > Has consciousness ever been a seperate individual? >Yes, we are the One Consciousness experiencing itself as separate human beings right now.> WE are not the one consciousness. > > > 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> > > > People, human beings, are not ripples in consciousness. >They are. At least according to my concept (to use Ramesh Balsekar's words): " I keep on saying 'my concept' for this reason: it is not the truth. Whatever *any* sage has said at *any* time. Whatever *any* religion has said at *any* time. Whatever *any* scripture has said at *any* time, is a concept. " > Yes, all explanation is phenomenonAL. Does not mean that thinking cannot 'help', so long as it is abandoned completely as a *means or a method*. > >It is consciousness *itself* who is > > conscious, a ripple cannot be conscious. > > > If you define consciousness as 'all there is', then consciousness is > not conscious. > Ramesh Balsekar and others have said 'All there is is consciousness' > consciousness then is not conscious. > > > >Your brain/body is not > > conscious> > > > Yes. >Your brain/body *is* consciousness expressing itself.> The human being exists over different levels of mind / 'matter'. The brain / body is not *conscious* > When objects manifest in the physical world they exist as different > levels of mind, and this is what we perceive partially through our > physical senses, > when we dream it is the unconscious generating or releasing images, > but objects and elements of a dream are not manifest like objects in > the > physical world. > I.e Objects that occurr in the dream state do not exist over > different levels of mental matter like objects in the physical world. > In this sense a dream, all of it, is *one* object only. >The physical world is an illusion, but a very persistent one. :-) I think it was Einstein or some other spiritually inclined person who said this.> Yes, I think it was Einstein also. The physical world is an '''illusion''', but remember the word 'illusion' means many different things to different people. The world is *illusionARY*; ( No object is inherently real *of itself* ) The world is 'illusionary', but it is still *real* Or the world should be considered as just as real as it is illusionary depending on our intention to explain it. > Dreams are compared by mystics to the waking state to show that > *awareness* is 'alive' in all states, > not to compare an object in a dream with an object perceived in the > waking state through mind / body sense apparatus. > > Again, the entire dream is one 'object' produced by the psyche. > A stone exists over different levels of mind and it's different > manifestation over these levels going 'upwards' is what > makes it a seperate and different thing. >Yes, a stone is very persistent (at least according to my memory).> Yes, all objects are their *own duration*, existing over different levels of and AS mental matter. No object, no thing is *of itself* real. ALL phenomenon, no matter how subtle or gross are no more credibly real than any vaporous cloud you have seen in the sky. > > > Jesus was not enlightened, Jesus was a ME. > > > > He dropped the ego and became enlightened. This happened as > > everything does: automatically. > > > You cannot 'drop an ego'. > There is no-one who has been enlightened, including Jesus, and, there > is no-one that *can* be. >The ego is being dropped. Then you will become a sage> The ego cannot be dropped, no *you* can become enlightened. > Thoughts and thinking craft our lives, they paint the picture, > mindfulness is about knowing what makes a beautiful picture and > creating the picture you *want*, > consciously using thoughts to make the most beautiful picture you > can, instead of flicking paint, finger painting, smearing images, or > throwing mud. >Real artists create from a state of 'flow' that has nothing to do with what we normally call thinking> I was not talking about artistic creation, see next point. >Even scientists, when they make great discoveries say that the discovery came when they relaxed the thinking mind> I am talking about ones life as a whole and not a capacity for receiving thoughts or creating inspiring or original works of art or inventions. The canvas I am speaking of is your own life, and it is this that I was referring to when I spoke about creating a beautiful picture as opposed to finger painting, throwing mud etc that arises or can arise from non-mindfulness. >There is selection going on, yes, but *who* is selecting?> A ME is the only thing that *can* select. >According to me the selecting going on is predeterminded, already complete; a singular moment> The selecting happens *within* time, it is not pre-determined. >It is only the ego in you that creates the thoughts: " I want to be an independent selector " , and " See, I am powerful, I can select! " > Yes, the ego includes all thoughts including the above 2. >What I am saying is that you are powerless as an individual, and all powerful as the One> An individual cannot become the One. *No created being can attain its essence* > > > 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. > > > Being the beings we are we have to live within 'laws', if you want to > call them that. > > Because I want to flap my wings and fly like a bird, or breath under > water, doesn't mean I can. > These 'laws' are laws of mind, they are structure. >You cannot think other thoughts than those who are *presented* to you> *You cannot think thoughts other than those you are mature enough to receive* The thoughts *available* to us are dependent upon the maturity of the mind capable of receiving them. >You cannot make any choice but the choice already made. It's good to feel completely powerless. Yes? No? :-) Choices are made within time, not ahead of time, not outside of time, not before time. > The ME that sees time and thinks about time is itself within time. > > Saying that I see time as ... is a ME speaking from within it with a > view to explaining a belief about it. <But the ME is a part of what is and cannot be otherwise. :-)> Yes. > >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. > > Times arrows are the behaviour of phenomenon. > Time has no direction, it is abitrary. >This I find an interesting idea. That time has no direction> We give time direction. We could correctly say that time is going backwards right 'now', then change it back by stating that it is now going forward. >I think so too, but that the arrow of time is determined by totality unfolding> Unfolding already implies times arrow going forward, it is inherent within our concept of unfolding. The behaviour of the phenomenon makes times arrows; for example time *does not* make us grow old, us growing old is time. >When human beings become more aware of themselves as part of totality, then maybe humans can begin to make some real miracles happen> *There is no such thing as a miracle* There is ''ONE'' solitary miracle. It is a ME that says so. *A ME *HAD* to say it* > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, > > unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing but > > consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 > > > Are you following this advice? > > Ironically is this advice that one can follow? <Yes, one can follow this advice> How? How can *you* follow this advice? >I believe we do have free will because we *must* have free will in order for reality to be what it is> What is, is dependent upon free will? >So, if I act according to my free will, then this is a beautiful part of an infinitely complex web of happenings taking place. >But if I am changeless, am I then not powerless?> Who is it that wants to know the answers to these questions raised? >No, the changeless can easily contain the all powerful by any standard you want to use.> >Do you want free will? You got it. Do you want to pray to God? You got it. Do you want to *be* God. Sorry, can't do that, God is already complete in its infinite love and intelligence. :-) > > " 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 > > > What observer? >You and me, and everybody, right now - the One Observer> You, me and everybody else are not observers or the one observer. > How many selves are there? >One Self, infinite number of selves (or souls)> The one self is many selves? There is no such thing as a soul, outside of concept used in explanation. > > > So the Self is the ALL aware of itself? > > > > Well, the Self is an infinite number of different view points in > the > > All. > > > So the Self is an infinite number of different viewpoints in the ALL? >Plus the timeless observation of all different viewpoints> So the Self is an infinite number of different viewpoints in the all + the timeless observation of all different viewpoints? > > > How do you use a wave function? > > > > The wave function is just a mathematical description used in for > > example quantum physics to model reality. > > > So, how are *you* using it? >As an atoming definition. By atomic I mean undivisible> What does a wave function define? > > > 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. > > > Yes. > So by points do you mean everything? like a snapshot of the whole > moment by moment? > Or spacial points? >A point is the nothingness talked about in spiritual scriptures> Your 'point' corresponds to the Buddhist's void, Sunyata, Ayn etc? > > > 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. > > > How can we see a wave function as a pattern in consciousness, other > than a conceptualization of belief? >We can't. :-) (at least not on an ordinary level of thinking)> A wave function then is another piece of mental furniture that we re- arrange? Is a wave function more or less phenomenal than a thought? > > > > 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. > > > What is the relationship between a wave function and a happening? >The wave function *is* the happening. The two cannot be separated> Above you say that a wave function cannot be conceptualized? If a wave function equals a happening, why do we need to conceptualize? > > > >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 not consciousness either. > Who is this WE? >The One Consciousness.> No, we are not the one consciousness. > > > Again, we are not timeless awareness. > > > > We are the One. :-) > > > No, we are not the One. <Sorry, I meant the One and the Many. :-)> No, we are not the one and the many, nor the one, nor the many. From a discrimination between this and that ... Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > < I have snipped a bit here > > > > > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, > > > unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing but > > > consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 > > > > > > Are you following this advice? > > > > Ironically is this advice that one can follow? > > <Yes, one can follow this advice> > > > How? > > How can *you* follow this advice? > When the time is right this advice can be followed, and then the ego is finished. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2004 Hi again, > > > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, > > > > unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing but > > > > consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 > > > > > > > > > Are you following this advice? > > > > > > Ironically is this advice that one can follow? > > > > <Yes, one can follow this advice> > > > > > > How? > > > > How can *you* follow this advice? > > > > When the time is right this advice can be followed> By who? How can *you* follow this advice? >and then the ego is finished> The ego doesn't 'finish' or cease to exist even in those we call '''enlightened'''. The ego is not something that is 'finished', gotten rid of, nor does it need to be gotten rid of, or thought of as being able to be gotten rid of. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, > > > > > unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing but > > > > > consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you following this advice? > > > > > > > > Ironically is this advice that one can follow? > > > > > > <Yes, one can follow this advice> > > > > > > > > > How? > > > > > > How can *you* follow this advice? > > > > > > > When the time is right this advice can be followed> > > > By who? > How can *you* follow this advice? Who? Hahahaha! ;-) > > > >and then the ego is finished> > > The ego doesn't 'finish' or cease to exist even in those we > call '''enlightened'''. > > The ego is not something that is 'finished', gotten rid of, nor does > it need to be gotten rid of, or thought of as being able to be gotten > rid of. The ego is nothing but a total hatred for the entire world including itself. The ego is 100% fear, and all fear is an illusion. This is explained in A Course in Miracles. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2004 Hi again, > > > > > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and > immovable, > > > > > > unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing > but > > > > > > consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you following this advice? > > > > > > > > > > Ironically is this advice that one can follow? > > > > > > > > <Yes, one can follow this advice> > > > > > > > > > > > > How? > > > > > > > > How can *you* follow this advice? > > > > > > > > > > When the time is right this advice can be followed> > > > > > > By who? > > How can *you* follow this advice? > > Who? Hahahaha! ;-)> Who can follow the advice? > > >and then the ego is finished> > > > > The ego doesn't 'finish' or cease to exist even in those we > > call '''enlightened'''. > > > > The ego is not something that is 'finished', gotten rid of, nor > does > > it need to be gotten rid of, or thought of as being able to be > gotten > > rid of. > The ego is nothing but a total hatred for the entire world including > itself> It is a ME including ego that says so. The interpretation / belief above is a reflection of a MEs *thoughts and thinking*, no ego hates the world or itself. It is either a sincere *belief* held by a ME or a *reaction* of a ME. >The ego is 100% fear, and all fear is an illusion> Fear can only happen to a ME, and a ME is just as capable of not experiencing fear. Why is the ME afraid? What is the ME afraid of? Fear is just one emotion that has been labelled as a cause for all these different things ( beliefs ) that you have tried to find causes for. Fear has been held responsible for all of them as a blanket cause when in fact fear is only one of many emotions of a ME. If one is experiencing fear then why is one experiencing fear? The only way to discover this is through introspection. > This is explained in A Course in Miracles> A book cannot introspect for you. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and > > immovable, > > > > > > > unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing > > but > > > > > > > consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you following this advice? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ironically is this advice that one can follow? > > > > > > > > > > <Yes, one can follow this advice> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How? > > > > > > > > > > How can *you* follow this advice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the time is right this advice can be followed> > > > > > > > > > By who? > > > How can *you* follow this advice? > > > > Who? Hahahaha! ;-)> > > > Who can follow the advice? Who can follow anything? > > > > > >and then the ego is finished> > > > > > > The ego doesn't 'finish' or cease to exist even in those we > > > call '''enlightened'''. > > > > > > The ego is not something that is 'finished', gotten rid of, nor > > does > > > it need to be gotten rid of, or thought of as being able to be > > gotten > > > rid of. > > > > The ego is nothing but a total hatred for the entire world > including > > itself> > > > It is a ME including ego that says so. > > The interpretation / belief above is a reflection of a MEs *thoughts > and thinking*, no ego hates the world or itself. > > It is either a sincere *belief* held by a ME or a *reaction* of a ME. > > > >The ego is 100% fear, and all fear is an illusion> > > > Fear can only happen to a ME, and a ME is just as capable of not > experiencing fear. > > Why is the ME afraid? > What is the ME afraid of? > > Fear is just one emotion that has been labelled as a cause for all > these different things ( beliefs ) that you have tried to find causes > for. > > Fear has been held responsible for all of them as a blanket cause > when in fact fear is only one of many emotions of a ME. > > If one is experiencing fear then why is one experiencing fear? > > The only way to discover this is through introspection. Fear is caused when a 'me' is projected into the future. This projection is a part of the ego, and the illusion that this projection needs to be protected creates fear. " What will happen to me, my family and friends, my money, my reputation, my career? Will I be safe in the future? Will I be healthy, happy? What will people think of me? I hope no one will find out this or that about me. I hope my innermost thoughts and feelings will not be revealed. Can I trust him/her/them? Is it safe? Is it safe?... " > > > > This is explained in A Course in Miracles> > > > A book cannot introspect for you. It's very easy to see this without a book. All thoughts about a future 'me' is connected to fear. Even desires exists within this blanket of fear. If you don't see this right away, then some introspection is needed. This fear is not a small thing, it is the very foundation for the sense of being a separate vulnerable individual. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2004 Hi again, > > > > > > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and > > immovable, > > > > > > > unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing > > but > > > > > > > consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you following this advice? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ironically is this advice that one can follow? > > > > > > > > > > <Yes, one can follow this advice> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How? > > > > > > > > > > How can *you* follow this advice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the time is right this advice can be followed> > > > > > > > > > By who? > > > How can *you* follow this advice? > > > > Who? Hahahaha! ;-)> > > > Who can follow the advice? >Who can follow anything?> 'When' was your condition to be able to follow this advice; *'When the time is right this advice can be followed'* We can follow certain advice; don't drink too much, save your money for a rainy day, take out insurance, advice on our emotions and thinking; for example observe your thoughts, mindfulness etc. But, how can *one* ( a ME ) follow this advice ( is 'when' conditional to follow it )?; " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing but consciousness " > Fear has been held responsible for all of them as a blanket cause > when in fact fear is only one of many emotions of a ME. > > If one is experiencing fear then why is one experiencing fear? > > The only way to discover this is through introspection. >Fear is caused when a 'me' is projected into the future> ME is not projected into the future, a ME worries about the future, and any concerns about the future can only occurr to a me. Yet fear is caused for many reasons, worry or concern about the future is only one, fear itself is but one emotion. But a ME experiencing fear is just as capable of not experiencing fear? *Why* is the ME afraid? *What* is the ME afraid OF? If you are experiencing fear, then why are you ( a ME ) experiencing fear? Either you are genuinely experiencing fear ( in which case you can find out why ), or you are anticipating fear as a sincere personal *belief* to explain as causation reasons why you believe things happen ( like a ME being seperate ), or the naming of fear is a reaction brought about in reponse to the discussion in which 'fear' is being used simply as a label. >This projection is a part of the ego> There is no 'projection', a ME worries about the future. >and the illusion that this projection needs to be protected creates fear> A ME worrying about the future is a ME thinking thoughts and is not something that can be 'protected'. The way we think about ourselves ( which is a *part* of the ego ) our own self image is what gets defended and needs protecting. " What will happen to me, my family and friends, my money, my reputation, my career? Will I be safe in the future? Will I be healthy, happy? What will people think of me? I hope no one will find out this or that about me. I hope my innermost thoughts and feelings will not be revealed. Can I trust him/her/them? Is it safe? Is it safe?... " > Are you *genuinely* having these thoughts? Are you using these thoughts to explain a belief you have about fear being a cause? Or is the above a reaction? If you are having these thoughts above and do not know *why* you are having them or how to resolve them then the only way is through introspection to find out why. If you are not having these thoughts but using them as an explanation for a belief held then why?; fear is just one emotion you have isolated yet given as an explanation for wide ranging assumptions and beliefs held by a ME. If it is a reaction then this reaction can also be investigated through introspection. > > This is explained in A Course in Miracles> > > > A book cannot introspect for you. >It's very easy to see this without a book> Are you truly seeing *your emotions and their causes* or are you *thinking* about emotions and causes and using fear as one emotion to explain *beliefs* you ( a ME ) holds? The same ME that thinks about it's problems is the same ME that creates them and the same ME that is capable of resolving them. >All thoughts about a future 'me' is connected to fear> No. A ME and thoughts about the future can bring the exact opposite and everywhere in-between, thoughts about the future can inspire, bring joy, happiness, expectation and so on. Why *select* such a narrow belief? Again, this is a broad assumption with a selected narrow cause to explain a belief that a ME has. >Even desires exists within this blanket of fear.> You have created the blanket a fear. What happens when you look for this 'blanket of fear'? ( with a detachment higher than the level of mind that created it ) >If you don't see this right away, then some introspection is needed> You have asserted a blanket of fear, then said if it is not realized that introspection is needed. If one has introspected there cannot be any blanket of fear. Identifying a blanket of fear is a worrying ME or it is a ME trying to explain and identify fear as a cause to explain a belief held. >This fear is not a small thing, it is the very foundation for the sense of being a separate vulnerable individual> Fear does not make a seperate vulnerable individual, nor is it the basis for it. Saying that 'fear is the very foundation for the sense of being a seperate individual' is a belief to try and explain to yourself ( a ME ) why a ME is vulnerable or seperate, yet the 'vulnerable and a seperate ME' is also a belief held by that same ME. Do you know yourself *as you truly are* in order to see fear for *what it is and does*, or are you seeing fear for what you *believe* it is and does. The only way to do this is through introspection. There are no 'excuses' in this regard since introspection is available to anyone. Fear is one emotion only, and fear only happens to a ME; it is a ME that fears and worries about fear itself. The same ME that experiences fear is capable of penetrating to the cause of it but *not* whilst they are involving themselves in using fear to *explain* personal beliefs of that same ME. Whilst this is occurring introspection is *impossible* since fears held as beliefs are false fears used only as explanations and not fears that are truly occurring to the ME that is creating them ( as beliefs ). **In order to explain, a ME invents or *holds fear responsible* as a cause for *beliefs* it is trying to explain to itself** Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and > > > immovable, > > > > > > > > unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to > nothing > > > but > > > > > > > > consciousness. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.17 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you following this advice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ironically is this advice that one can follow? > > > > > > > > > > > > <Yes, one can follow this advice> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How? > > > > > > > > > > > > How can *you* follow this advice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the time is right this advice can be followed> > > > > > > > > > > > > By who? > > > > How can *you* follow this advice? > > > > > > Who? Hahahaha! ;-)> > > > > > > Who can follow the advice? > > >Who can follow anything?> > > > 'When' was your condition to be able to follow this advice; > > > *'When the time is right this advice can be followed'* > > > We can follow certain advice; don't drink too much, save your money > for a rainy day, take out insurance, advice on our emotions and > thinking; for example observe your thoughts, mindfulness etc. > > But, how can *one* ( a ME ) follow this advice ( is 'when' > conditional to follow it )?; > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and > immovable, unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to > nothing but consciousness " Unfathomable awareness is trapped in the form of a person, and that person is doing things all the time. The desciption of holding on to nothing but consciousness is similar to hold on to " I am " - it is the stick that stirs the fire and in the end the stick itself is burned up. > > > > > Fear has been held responsible for all of them as a blanket cause > > when in fact fear is only one of many emotions of a ME. > > > > If one is experiencing fear then why is one experiencing fear? > > > > The only way to discover this is through introspection. > > > >Fear is caused when a 'me' is projected into the future> > > > ME is not projected into the future, a ME worries about the future, > and any concerns about the future can only occurr to a me. But the worry is always related to that ME, it is part of the 'me', not separate from it. Without thinking about past and future there is no 'me' who needs to be protected or promoted. > > Yet fear is caused for many reasons, worry or concern about the > future is only one, fear itself is but one emotion. > > But a ME experiencing fear is just as capable of not experiencing > fear? > > *Why* is the ME afraid? > *What* is the ME afraid OF? > > If you are experiencing fear, then why are you ( a ME ) experiencing > fear? > > Either you are genuinely experiencing fear ( in which case you can > find out why ), or you are anticipating fear as a sincere personal > *belief* to explain as causation reasons why you believe things > happen ( like a ME being seperate ), or the naming of fear is a > reaction brought about in reponse to the discussion in which 'fear' > is being used simply as a label. The very process of thinking is fear-based. All thoughts have some form of fear at the root, often very, very hidden so that normally we don't even know there is fear that drives thinking. The base of fear is the idea that something needs to be fixed or corrected seen from a serious viewpoint. Even such simple act as thinking about a problem is fear-based. The very act of thought trying to protect itself (its ideas/knowlegde) in the form of being right is a fear-based process. > > > > >This > projection is a part of the ego> > > > There is no 'projection', a ME worries about the future. The ego is the past and future 'me'. > > > >and the illusion that this > projection needs to be protected creates fear> > > > A ME worrying about the future is a ME thinking thoughts and is not > something that can be 'protected'. > The way we think about ourselves ( which is a *part* of the ego ) our > own self image is what gets defended and needs protecting. Why do we think about the future? More often than not the reason is that we want to control the future in order to increase the chance that we and the world will be happy in the future. But this is not control. This is a lack of control. This breeds insecurity and thereby worry. > > > > " What will happen to > me, my family and friends, my money, my reputation, my career? Will I > be safe in the future? Will I be healthy, happy? What will people > think of me? I hope no one will find out this or that about me. I > hope my innermost thoughts and feelings will not be revealed. Can I > trust him/her/them? Is it safe? Is it safe?... " > > > > Are you *genuinely* having these thoughts? > > Are you using these thoughts to explain a belief you have about fear > being a cause? > > Or is the above a reaction? > > > If you are having these thoughts above and do not know *why* you are > having them or how to resolve them then the only way is through > introspection to find out why. > > If you are not having these thoughts but using them as an explanation > for a belief held then why?; fear is just one emotion you have > isolated yet given as an explanation for wide ranging assumptions and > beliefs held by a ME. > > If it is a reaction then this reaction can also be investigated > through introspection. I have these and other thoughts of fear. I have lowered my threshold for what I consider to be fear, and the lower I go, the more I am convinced that virtually all my thoughts are fear-based. When I rise the threshold, then I would not call my thoughts to be fearful, just ordinary thoughts. But I have done some pretty heavy introspection and I can see exactly what J. Krishnamurti talked about when he described the fragmented and fearful mind. No fear can be entirely understood by analysis, because one has to look at the whole field of fear as a single phenomena. > > > > > This is explained in A Course in Miracles> > > > > > > A book cannot introspect for you. > > >It's very easy to see this without a book> > > > Are you truly seeing *your emotions and their causes* or are you > *thinking* about emotions and causes and using fear as one emotion to > explain *beliefs* you ( a ME ) holds? > > The same ME that thinks about it's problems is the same ME that > creates them and the same ME that is capable of resolving them. All thinking and all my emotions - or at least almost all of them - come from the root idea that I am a separate and vulnerable human being who constantly needs to be protected (consciously and subconsciously). > > > >All thoughts about a > future 'me' is connected to fear> > > > No. > > A ME and thoughts about the future can bring the exact opposite and > everywhere in-between, > thoughts about the future can inspire, bring joy, happiness, > expectation and so on. > > Why *select* such a narrow belief? > > Again, this is a broad assumption with a selected narrow cause to > explain a belief that a ME has. Thinking about the future in a positive way always contains the often hidden fact that these thoughts are a form of a dream world, an in order for this dream to come true, the world must not hinder the 'me' to fulfill them, and o my does the world make hinders: so this breeds fear in an often hidden way. > > > >Even desires exists within this > blanket of fear.> > > > You have created the blanket a fear. > > What happens when you look for this 'blanket of fear'? ( with a > detachment higher than the level of mind that created it ) The blanket of fear is often supressed during our buzy day, but when we are not buzy this blanket (the pain body) can be felt as restlessness, boredom, sourness, anger e t c. > > > >If you don't see this right away, then some > introspection is needed> > > > You have asserted a blanket of fear, then said if it is not realized > that introspection is needed. > If one has introspected there cannot be any blanket of fear. > > Identifying a blanket of fear is a worrying ME or it is a ME trying > to explain and identify fear as a cause to explain a belief held. Introspection can reveal the fear yes, and then the fear actually can increase, but if one stays in that state of introspection the fear is being burned up. > > > > >This fear is not a small thing, it is the very foundation for the > sense of being a separate vulnerable individual> > > > Fear does not make a seperate vulnerable individual, nor is it the > basis for it. > > Saying that 'fear is the very foundation for the sense of being a > seperate individual' is a belief to try and explain to yourself ( a > ME ) why a ME is vulnerable or seperate, yet the 'vulnerable and a > seperate ME' is also a belief held by that same ME. > > Do you know yourself *as you truly are* in order to see fear for > *what it is and does*, or are you seeing fear for what you *believe* > it is and does. > > The only way to do this is through introspection. > There are no 'excuses' in this regard since introspection is > available to anyone. > > Fear is one emotion only, and fear only happens to a ME; it is a ME > that fears and worries about fear itself. > > The same ME that experiences fear is capable of penetrating to the > cause of it but *not* whilst they are involving themselves in using > fear to *explain* personal beliefs of that same ME. > > Whilst this is occurring introspection is *impossible* since fears > held as beliefs are false fears used only as explanations and not > fears that are truly occurring to the ME that is creating them ( as > beliefs ). > > **In order to explain, a ME invents or *holds fear responsible* as a > cause for *beliefs* it is trying to explain to itself** Introspection must be more than only an intellectual analysis. One's whole being must be 'observed' deeply. Anakin: What has that to do with anything? Yoda: Everything! Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2004 Hi again, > > 'When' was your condition to be able to follow this advice; > > > > > > *'When the time is right this advice can be followed'* > > > > > > We can follow certain advice; don't drink too much, save your money > > for a rainy day, take out insurance, advice on our emotions and > > thinking; for example observe your thoughts, mindfulness etc. > > > > But, how can *one* ( a ME ) follow this advice ( is 'when' > > conditional to follow it )?; > > > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and > > immovable, unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to > > nothing but consciousness " > > Unfathomable awareness is trapped in the form of a person, and that > person is doing things all the time> How can something which is free be trapped? Awareness is not trapped, a ME is bound. The desciption of holding on to > nothing but consciousness is similar to hold on to " I am " - it is the > stick that stirs the fire and in the end the stick itself is burned > up. If there is something to be *done*, ( something which needs doing by a ME ) then that ME is bound. 'I am' is a pointer, as too is the advice above. There is nothing that a ME can DO to attain; that it *has* to DO to attain, because there is nothing *for* a ME to attain. *Only a ME can follow advice, and a ME doing or following advice is a ME bound* Can any ME follow this advice for an outcome to be achieved, can a ME see itself as consciousness or hold onto consciousness? If a ME follows the advice, that ME is bound, if a ME follows it with an expectation of a ME acheiving or attaining then that ME is also bound. > > > Fear has been held responsible for all of them as a blanket cause > > > when in fact fear is only one of many emotions of a ME. > > > > > > If one is experiencing fear then why is one experiencing fear? > > > > > > The only way to discover this is through introspection. > > > > > > >Fear is caused when a 'me' is projected into the future> > > > > > > ME is not projected into the future, a ME worries about the future, > > and any concerns about the future can only occurr to a me. > > But the worry is always related to that ME> Yes, it is only a ME that worries, any concerns about the future can only occurr to a ME. >it is part of the 'me', > not separate from it> Yes. >Without thinking about past and future there is > no 'me' who needs to be protected or promoted> There is a ME even if the past and future are not thought about. Thinking about the past and future does not create a ME. Thinking about the past and future is one of things a ME does, not what a ME is. > > Yet fear is caused for many reasons, worry or concern about the > > future is only one, fear itself is but one emotion. > > > > But a ME experiencing fear is just as capable of not experiencing > > fear? > > > > *Why* is the ME afraid? > > *What* is the ME afraid OF? > > > > If you are experiencing fear, then why are you ( a ME ) > experiencing > > fear? > > > > Either you are genuinely experiencing fear ( in which case you can > > find out why ), or you are anticipating fear as a sincere personal > > *belief* to explain as causation reasons why you believe things > > happen ( like a ME being seperate ), or the naming of fear is a > > reaction brought about in reponse to the discussion in which 'fear' > > is being used simply as a label. > > The very process of thinking is fear-based> Our thinking occurrs for many reasons, thinking and emotions are related, the process of thinking is not fear based. Emotions and emotional energy are closer to physical material ( physical world ) than thoughts and thought energy, our emotions are a closer phenomenon to the physical than the phenomenon of thought is. Fear ( and all emotions ) exist in a realm of activity below that of thoughts and thinking. Emotions and thinking can affect one another and they also exist seperately. Thinking can also consist of only pure abstract or intellectual thoughts which have nothing to do with any of our emotions and do not touch emotional content. In other words it is possible to think without any emotional content whatsoever. Saying that the process of thinking is fear based is a guess, reaction, or an assumed *belief*. 'Fear' is being held responsible as a cause to explain beliefs you hold. >Thinking is a fear based process> No, thinking is not a fear dependent or a fear based process. >All thoughts have some > form of fear at the root, often very, very hidden so that normally we > don't even know there is fear that drives thinking> All thoughts do not have the same root ( cause ), and all thoughts do not share the same causal root of fear. Individual thoughts arise for different reasons and are not related to fear as their cause. Thinking and even individual thoughts arise for specific reasons, out of necessity, intention and will, reaction, emotion, and many other reasons. It is merely guessing to say that thinking is caused by fear. The only way to discover this is by examining how mind works. >The base of fear > is the idea that something needs to be fixed or corrected seen from a > serious viewpoint> Fear can occurr for many different reasons. Have you looked at fears you are having, are they real fears, or are the fears you have mentioned ways of explaining beliefs? Even such simple act as thinking about a problem > is fear-based. The very act of thought trying to protect itself (its > ideas/knowlegde)> It is our self image and the way we think about ourselves that we are trying to be protect. The degree to which this protection of self image is required varies *tremendously* from person to person. Again, introspection is the magic wand that allows one to see themselves as they *truly are* and why this protection of self image is either necessary or unnecesary and to what degree. >in the form of being right is a fear-based process> Again, this is the self image ( the way we think about ourselves and how we think others see us ) that we try to protect. > > >This > > projection is a part of the ego> > > > > > > There is no 'projection', a ME worries about the future. > > The ego is the past and future 'me'. No, the ego isn't created from a ME thinking about the past and future, thinking about the past and future are some of the things a ME does, they are not a ME. > > >and the illusion that this > > projection needs to be protected creates fear> > > > > > > A ME worrying about the future is a ME thinking thoughts and is not > > something that can be 'protected'. > > The way we think about ourselves ( which is a *part* of the ego ) > our > > own self image is what gets defended and needs protecting. > > Why do we think about the future?> There are many reasons we think about the future. More often than not the reason is > that we want to control the future in order to increase the chance > that we and the world will be happy in the future> Yes, this is one thing that a ME does. But this is not > control. This is a lack of control. This breeds insecurity and > thereby worry. Only a ME can worry. Why is the ME worrying? What is the ME worrying about? A ME worrying about the future is not the cause of a ME worrying. Unless you can find out the causes of why you are worrying, worrying will continue. How much of this is genuine worry, that you are actually experiencing and how much of it is simply being used in the form of an explanation of how you think the labelling of fear can help to explain beliefs? > > Are you *genuinely* having these thoughts? > > > > Are you using these thoughts to explain a belief you have about > fear > > being a cause? > > > > Or is the above a reaction? > > > > > > If you are having these thoughts above and do not know *why* you > are > > having them or how to resolve them then the only way is through > > introspection to find out why. > > > > If you are not having these thoughts but using them as an > explanation > > for a belief held then why?; fear is just one emotion you have > > isolated yet given as an explanation for wide ranging assumptions > and > > beliefs held by a ME. > > > > If it is a reaction then this reaction can also be investigated > > through introspection. > > I have these and other thoughts of fear> If you are genuinely having these thoughts then you can find out why you are having them by finding out the cause through introspection. I don't think that you are experiencing all the fears you have listed in the previous email, nor that they are manifesting in the way you have described them. >I have lowered my threshold > for what I consider to be fear, and the lower I go, the more I am > convinced that virtually all my thoughts are fear-based> Maybe it is your definition of fear that you are changing, or the breadth of it's action to explain beliefs; how it can be used to explain beliefs you hold, and how it can be used to explain beliefs you hold about fear *itself* as used in explanations? When I rise > the threshold, then I would not call my thoughts to be fearful, just > ordinary thoughts. Again, I think you are holding fear responsible not for what it is or what it is capable of doing, not even for the effects of how it *actually* manifests to you, but that you are using or blaming fear to explain beliefs you hold. >But I have done some pretty heavy introspection > and I can see exactly what J. Krishnamurti talked about when he > described the fragmented and fearful mind> If you have *truly* introspected then a 'blanket of fear' would not be something that you would *need* to create or speak about as having a seperate existence and having an existence that was able to have any capacity of power or influence over you. >No fear can be entirely > understood by analysis, because one has to look at the whole field of > fear as a single phenomena. Fear is not a single thing responsible for the problems and explanations you have given to it. Sometimes the greatest fear is the fear that fear itself brings, or the way we use fear in explanation. When people like Krishnamurti talk about fear they are speaking from their particular viewpoint with their particular inherentness of viewpoint which is not possible for you to see in the same way. It is also to be assumed that these people have introspected and are aware of what fear truly is and how fear affects them. It is also a myth to think that so called ''enlightened persons'' do not have fears. > > Are you truly seeing *your emotions and their causes* or are you > > *thinking* about emotions and causes and using fear as one emotion > to > > explain *beliefs* you ( a ME ) holds? > > > > The same ME that thinks about it's problems is the same ME that > > creates them and the same ME that is capable of resolving them. > > All thinking and all my emotions - or at least almost all of them - > come from the root idea that I am a separate and vulnerable human > being who constantly needs to be protected (consciously and > subconsciously). Thoughts do not happen because you are seperate. Thoughts and emotions occurr for many and specific reasons, fear is just one emotion which has the capacity to affect thinking in a particular and restricted way. Every emotion has the capacity to do likewise. Thoughts also cause emotions. And thoughts can occurr in isolation also. > > A ME and thoughts about the future can bring the exact opposite and > > everywhere in-between, > > thoughts about the future can inspire, bring joy, happiness, > > expectation and so on. > > > > Why *select* such a narrow belief? > > > > Again, this is a broad assumption with a selected narrow cause to > > explain a belief that a ME has. > > Thinking about the future in a positive way always contains the often > hidden fact that these thoughts are a form of a dream world> If you are talking about winning lotto yes, if you are talking about having a family get together, going on a holiday, these expectations will be different. Thinking about the future does not imply fear. >an in > order for this dream to come true, the world must not hinder the 'me' > to fulfill them, and o my does the world make hinders: so this breeds > fear in an often hidden way > > You have created the blanket a fear. > > > > What happens when you look for this 'blanket of fear'? ( with a > > detachment higher than the level of mind that created it ) > > The blanket of fear is often supressed during our buzy day> This is not introspection. You are not looking for a 'blanket of fear'. This is another conception using again the original conception of a 'blanket of fear': 'the blanket of fear is often supressed...'. With introspection it is not possible to find a 'blanket of fear' because a blanket of fear is something you have created. It's 'supression during the day' is another created conception. Neither of these are real. The level of mind that introspects with detachment is higher than that which created these conceptions. Introspection allows you to work with, and forces you to face, the raw emotions not just conceptions used for explanation. It allows you to see *why* the fears you mentioned happen, and if in fact they are *true* fears, as well as why a 'blanket of fear' as a conception is needed or why it is being used. but when > we are not buzy this blanket (the pain body) can be felt as > restlessness, boredom, sourness, anger e t c> The blanket of fear and pain body are are not real. The above are emotions which are real ( if you are genuinely experiencing them ). You are creating a 'blanket of fear' out of them as a conception ( for a reason or a need ) But more important than the conception is the emotions themselves. Why does restlessness, boredom and sourness *occurr*?; These emotions do not happen because of a blanket of fear, nor are they themselves a blanket of fear. A 'blanket of fear' does not happen because of these emotions, nor is a blanket of fear these emotions; a blanket of fear is *created* by you and spoken about because of a *reason or a need*. If you were to go looking for this blanket of fear, you would not and could not find it. Why then does the need arise to create a 'blanket of fear'?; What is the reason or cause? A blanket of fear is a conception that is *used to explain* personal *beliefs* to *yourself*, then this blanket of fear get supressed as another conception to explain belief. A blanket of fear is initially created to explain a belief, then given the notion of being supressed during the day, but none of this is real. I think you said it was Ken Wilber who spoke about a 'pain body'. I believe this is a very misleading and non-useful term. Man has already been described as consisting of various bodies like the emotional body, astral body, mental body, causal body, etheric double, vital sheath, and so on, saying that we now have a pain body causes more unneeded confusion and makes introspection more difficult. People start using this term as a form of blame, e.g: my 'pain body' gets worse on weekends, the 'pain body' becomes heavy when I work to hard, the 'blanket of fear' get supressed during the day etc. People start saying things like *the* or *my* pain body or *the* blanket of fear, speaking of them as if they are real things capable of affecting one's self, when really there is no such thing. It is that persons conception that they have created that is affecting them or is being used to explain how they are affected or could be affected by something that they hold responsible or are blaming. These statements are not working with the real causes, they are blaming or shifting blame away from the true causes and / or they are used to support the personal *beliefs* of someone who *feels that fear is responsible*. If you were to approach a psychologist or psychiatrist and speak to them of a 'pain body' or 'blanket of fear', I imagine the first thing they would do is ask you what it consists of and where it is, they would show you that it is only a conception, by looking in and showing you that you have created it *because* of fear, or because of a need to explain a *belief* you have about *fear being the responsible factor*. The techniques that psychologists use are the same as what mystics and others use to determine *accurate* self knowledge. Accurate self knowledge is not happening and not possible whilst created conceptions are being used to explain beliefs. > > >If you don't see this right away, then some > > introspection is needed> > > > > > > You have asserted a blanket of fear, then said if it is not > realized > > that introspection is needed. > > If one has introspected there cannot be any blanket of fear. > > > > Identifying a blanket of fear is a worrying ME or it is a ME trying > > to explain and identify fear as a cause to explain a belief held. > > Introspection can reveal the fear yes> A blanket of fear is not a fear. A 'blanket of fear' is a creation of a ( worrying ) ME explaining reasons why fear is to be feared. Introspection should also make it obvious why these conceptions have been used or why they are needed. and then the fear actually can > increase, but if one stays in that state of introspection the fear is > being burned up. Fear does not burn up 'by itself'. In order to change, one must see and *recognize* their behaviour, thoughts, thinking and emotions objectively, by passive observance; fear cannot burn up by itself if looked at; A ME has to recognize *why* fear ( or any other emotion etc ) occurrs then one can act with the awareness of the normal reactions it should or wants to undergo, instead of these emotions being automatic or instinctual they become things which one is acutely aware of. So as soon as the emotion arises it is like a little alarm bell ringing and you know that the emotion can be released, thrown away or changed 'mid-arising', after a time these emotions do not arise. The following is the essence; There are really no excuses for a ME complaining about fear and giving reasons as conceptions of how fear works and *what it is capable of doing to them*, *if they are genuinely interested in ridding themselves of *genuine* problems*. The indication is, that if someone can genuinely explain how fear affects them then this is not a genuine problem. For if they are the correct reasons of how that someone is affected by genuine problems and not just reasons being used to explain beliefs then the correct introspection should have relieved a ME of the burden of speaking about how and why they are being affected. > > Do you know yourself *as you truly are* in order to see fear for > > *what it is and does*, or are you seeing fear for what you > *believe* > > it is and does. > > Fear is one emotion only, and fear only happens to a ME; it is a ME > > that fears and worries about fear itself. > > > > The same ME that experiences fear is capable of penetrating to the > > cause of it but *not* whilst they are involving themselves in using > > fear to *explain* personal beliefs of that same ME. > > > > Whilst this is occurring introspection is *impossible* since fears > > held as beliefs are false fears used only as explanations and not > > fears that are truly occurring to the ME that is creating them ( as > > beliefs ). > > > > **In order to explain, a ME invents or *holds fear responsible* as > a > > cause for *beliefs* it is trying to explain to itself** > > Introspection must be momore than only an intellectual analysis. One's whole being must be 'observed' deeply. Introspection is not happening ( not possible ) whilst one is *using* false causes such as what has been attributed to fear. It is the *trying for explanation of beliefs* that is creating the various causes that you have been holding fear as being responsible for. But these are not fears, they are opinions and conceptions in support of beliefs ( about why fear is to be feared, a belief ) These concepts are not *needed*, they are created by a ME that is making it's own fears to explain to itself why fear is such a powerful force ( over ) itself and / or others. Under introspection these conceptions cannot exist because they *only exist* to support the explanation of why a ME holds fear as being to blame for so many different assumptions. These conceptions serve the *need* to explain why a ME thinks fear is such a powerful force. This would be obvious to anyone that introspects for the right reasons of genuinely wanting to get rid of genuine fears, whoever acted with detachment, sincerity and honesty could easily recognize this. Is it possible that you are not experiencing the numerous fears you have expressed, and that they have not manifested in the way you have suggested? That you are assuming initially that fear is to blame and then creating conceptions about fear to support this belief? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > 'When' was your condition to be able to follow this advice; > > > > > > > > > *'When the time is right this advice can be followed'* > > > > > > > > > We can follow certain advice; don't drink too much, save your > money > > > for a rainy day, take out insurance, advice on our emotions and > > > thinking; for example observe your thoughts, mindfulness etc. > > > > > > But, how can *one* ( a ME ) follow this advice ( is 'when' > > > conditional to follow it )?; > > > > > > " You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and > > > immovable, unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to > > > nothing but consciousness " > > > > Unfathomable awareness is trapped in the form of a person, and that > > person is doing things all the time> > > > How can something which is free be trapped? > > Awareness is not trapped, a ME is bound. What you call a ME I call a form of/in awareness. > > > The desciption of holding on to > > nothing but consciousness is similar to hold on to " I am " - it is > the > > stick that stirs the fire and in the end the stick itself is burned > > up. > > > If there is something to be *done*, ( something which needs doing by > a ME ) then that ME is bound. > > 'I am' is a pointer, as too is the advice above. > > There is nothing that a ME can DO to attain; that it *has* to DO to > attain, because there is nothing *for* a ME to attain. > > *Only a ME can follow advice, and a ME doing or following advice is a > ME bound* > > Can any ME follow this advice for an outcome to be achieved, can a ME > see itself as consciousness or hold onto consciousness? > > If a ME follows the advice, that ME is bound, if a ME follows it with > an expectation of a ME acheiving or attaining then that ME is also > bound. The ME is a form in consciousness (or the One cosmic stuff) and as such is a relative appearance not able to do anything in or by itself. > > > > > > Fear has been held responsible for all of them as a blanket > cause > > > > when in fact fear is only one of many emotions of a ME. > > > > > > > > If one is experiencing fear then why is one experiencing fear? > > > > > > > > The only way to discover this is through introspection. > > > > > > > > > >Fear is caused when a 'me' is projected into the future> > > > > > > > > > ME is not projected into the future, a ME worries about the > future, > > > and any concerns about the future can only occurr to a me. > > > > But the worry is always related to that ME> > > > Yes, it is only a ME that worries, any concerns about the future can > only occurr to a ME. > > > >it is part of the 'me', > > not separate from it> > > > Yes. > > > >Without thinking about past and future there is > > no 'me' who needs to be protected or promoted> > > > There is a ME even if the past and future are not thought about. > > Thinking about the past and future does not create a ME. > > Thinking about the past and future is one of things a ME does, not > what a ME is. Yes, the 'I am' still remains even when there is no past or future, if you want to include the impersonal awareness as a part of the ME. > > > > > Yet fear is caused for many reasons, worry or concern about the > > > future is only one, fear itself is but one emotion. > > > > > > But a ME experiencing fear is just as capable of not experiencing > > > fear? > > > > > > *Why* is the ME afraid? > > > *What* is the ME afraid OF? > > > > > > If you are experiencing fear, then why are you ( a ME ) > > experiencing > > > fear? > > > > > > Either you are genuinely experiencing fear ( in which case you > can > > > find out why ), or you are anticipating fear as a sincere > personal > > > *belief* to explain as causation reasons why you believe things > > > happen ( like a ME being seperate ), or the naming of fear is a > > > reaction brought about in reponse to the discussion in > which 'fear' > > > is being used simply as a label. > > > > The very process of thinking is fear-based> > > > Our thinking occurrs for many reasons, thinking and emotions are > related, the process of thinking is not fear based. > > Emotions and emotional energy are closer to physical material ( > physical world ) than thoughts and thought energy, > our emotions are a closer phenomenon to the physical than the > phenomenon of thought is. > > Fear ( and all emotions ) exist in a realm of activity below that of > thoughts and thinking. > > Emotions and thinking can affect one another and they also exist > seperately. > > Thinking can also consist of only pure abstract or intellectual > thoughts which have nothing to do with any of our emotions > and do not touch emotional content. > > In other words it is possible to think without any emotional content > whatsoever. > > Saying that the process of thinking is fear based is a guess, > reaction, or an assumed *belief*. > > 'Fear' is being held responsible as a cause to explain beliefs you > hold. If you look at it closely, then you will find that thinking and feeling/emotion always go together. Thinking is the result of a fragmented process and the force that drives this process is fear. Clearly, you must see this? > > > > >Thinking is a fear based process> > > > No, thinking is not a fear dependent or a fear based process. I use fear here in the broadest sense of the word. Everything that needs to be fixed, added, scrutinized through analysis, planned, understood, controlled, or fixed into a conceptual framework I call fear. > > > >All thoughts have some > > form of fear at the root, often very, very hidden so that normally > we > > don't even know there is fear that drives thinking> > > > All thoughts do not have the same root ( cause ), and all thoughts do > not share the same causal root of fear. > > Individual thoughts arise for different reasons and are not related > to fear as their cause. > Thinking and even individual thoughts arise for specific reasons, out > of necessity, intention and will, reaction, > emotion, and many other reasons. > > It is merely guessing to say that thinking is caused by fear. > > The only way to discover this is by examining how mind works. Are you sure thought is needed? There may be a state of mind that works at a level above thought where everything is directly seen fully in a complete way. Thought itself is always fragmented, limited, and empty in itself, and that is why thought breeds fear. Thought is never sure of _anything_, and this inherent insecurity _is_ fear. Surely, you must see this? > > > >The base of fear > > is the idea that something needs to be fixed or corrected seen from > a > > serious viewpoint> > > > Fear can occurr for many different reasons. > > Have you looked at fears you are having, are they real fears, or are > the fears you have mentioned ways of explaining beliefs? The fears I sense are all related to my thinking, to my mental image of the world and myself. My mental image is divided into a separate 'me' and the rest of the world, and this inevitably breeds fear. > > > Even such simple act as thinking about a problem > > is fear-based. The very act of thought trying to protect itself > (its > > ideas/knowlegde)> > > > It is our self image and the way we think about ourselves that we are > trying to be protect. Yes! > > The degree to which this protection of self image is required varies > *tremendously* from person to person. Yes, that may be so, but you only have to watch the news and commercials on TV to see that our society is fear-based. > > Again, introspection is the magic wand that allows one to see > themselves as they *truly are* and why this protection of self image > is either necessary or unnecesary and to what degree. Yes, introspection can give insight, but true liberation comes from grace I believe. > > >in the form of being right is a fear-based process> > > > Again, this is the self image ( the way we think about ourselves and > how we think others see us ) that we try to protect. Absolutely. > > > > > >This > > > projection is a part of the ego> > > > > > > > > > There is no 'projection', a ME worries about the future. > > > > The ego is the past and future 'me'. > > > No, the ego isn't created from a ME thinking about the past and > future, thinking about the past and future are some of the things a > ME does, they are not a ME. I define the ego as the past and future 'me'. > > > > > >and the illusion that this > > > projection needs to be protected creates fear> > > > > > > > > > A ME worrying about the future is a ME thinking thoughts and is > not > > > something that can be 'protected'. > > > The way we think about ourselves ( which is a *part* of the ego ) > > our > > > own self image is what gets defended and needs protecting. > > > > Why do we think about the future?> > > > There are many reasons we think about the future. > > > More often than not the reason is > > that we want to control the future in order to increase the chance > > that we and the world will be happy in the future> > > > Yes, this is one thing that a ME does. > > > But this is not > > control. This is a lack of control. This breeds insecurity and > > thereby worry. > > > Only a ME can worry. > > Why is the ME worrying? > What is the ME worrying about? > > A ME worrying about the future is not the cause of a ME worrying. > > Unless you can find out the causes of why you are worrying, worrying > will continue. > > How much of this is genuine worry, that you are actually experiencing > and how much of it is simply being used in the form of an explanation > of how you think the labelling of fear can help to explain beliefs? I am saying that _no_ worry is genuine, that all worry is an illusion, a distrust in the universe, and a phony trust in the 'little separate me', and _because_ we trust the little me and not the universe as a whole, there is worry, but this worry is too a part of the universe and needed as long as it is needed. > > > > > > Are you *genuinely* having these thoughts? > > > > > > Are you using these thoughts to explain a belief you have about > > fear > > > being a cause? > > > > > > Or is the above a reaction? > > > > > > > > > If you are having these thoughts above and do not know *why* you > > are > > > having them or how to resolve them then the only way is through > > > introspection to find out why. > > > > > > If you are not having these thoughts but using them as an > > explanation > > > for a belief held then why?; fear is just one emotion you have > > > isolated yet given as an explanation for wide ranging assumptions > > and > > > beliefs held by a ME. > > > > > > If it is a reaction then this reaction can also be investigated > > > through introspection. > > > > I have these and other thoughts of fear> > > > If you are genuinely having these thoughts then you can find out why > you are having them by finding out the cause through introspection. > > I don't think that you are experiencing all the fears you have listed > in the previous email, nor that they are manifesting in the way you > have described them. I think that all fears are casused by the evolutionary step from animal human to mature human. Fear itself has genetic roots that goes down into the entire ecological record of life on earth, ca 3 billion years ago. Humanity is based not only on society and culture, but also on the human gene pool which probably streches all the way to the first single cellular life forms, and maybe even further 'back' than that. The next step in human evolution is I believe the realization that we are all one, and that there is nothing to fear. > > > >I have lowered my threshold > > for what I consider to be fear, and the lower I go, the more I am > > convinced that virtually all my thoughts are fear-based> > > > Maybe it is your definition of fear that you are changing, or the > breadth of it's action to explain beliefs; how it can be used to > explain beliefs you hold, and how it can be used to explain beliefs > you hold about fear *itself* as used in explanations? Take a look at people when you walk in a city. That should convince you that we live in a fear-based society. Watch TV, and notice how fear is the underlaying force there. We don't need any analysis to see this. Direct observation reveals the truth instantly. Maybe we are so used to live in this way that we actually don't see that fear is running the world. > > > When I rise > > the threshold, then I would not call my thoughts to be fearful, > just > > ordinary thoughts. > > > Again, I think you are holding fear responsible not for what it is or > what it is capable of doing, not even for the effects of how it > *actually* manifests to you, but that you are using or blaming fear > to explain beliefs you hold. I am just desribing what I observe directly in me, and in other people. > > > >But I have done some pretty heavy introspection > > and I can see exactly what J. Krishnamurti talked about when he > > described the fragmented and fearful mind> > > > If you have *truly* introspected then a 'blanket of fear' would not > be something that you would *need* to create or speak about as having > a seperate existence and having an existence that was able to have > any capacity of power or influence over you. But fear _is_ the main driving force in our society, it is all too obvious. > > > >No fear can be entirely > > understood by analysis, because one has to look at the whole field > of > > fear as a single phenomena. > > > Fear is not a single thing responsible for the problems and > explanations you have given to it. > Sometimes the greatest fear is the fear that fear itself brings, or > the way we use fear in explanation. > > When people like Krishnamurti talk about fear they are speaking from > their particular viewpoint with their particular inherentness of > viewpoint which is not possible for you to see in the same way. > > It is also to be assumed that these people have introspected and are > aware of what fear truly is and how fear affects them. > It is also a myth to think that so called ''enlightened persons'' do > not have fears. Yes, I suspect that _no_ person in this world is or has been without fear, not even insane people (but I could be very wrong here). Maybe Buddha and Jesus Christ were fearless, but I don't know if they are real historical persons. Everything is one interconnected wholeness, and humanity as a whole is one interconnected wholeness. Humanity will evolve and the next step will be the realization of fearlessness I believe. The Danish philosopher Martinus said that humanity will become real humans in three thousand years, or something like that. According to him, humanity at this moment is living in a dark zone between the animal kingdom and real human kindom, so we are half animals and half humans right now according to him. :-) > > > > > Are you truly seeing *your emotions and their causes* or are you > > > *thinking* about emotions and causes and using fear as one > emotion > > to > > > explain *beliefs* you ( a ME ) holds? > > > > > > The same ME that thinks about it's problems is the same ME that > > > creates them and the same ME that is capable of resolving them. > > > > All thinking and all my emotions - or at least almost all of them - > > come from the root idea that I am a separate and vulnerable human > > being who constantly needs to be protected (consciously and > > subconsciously). > > > Thoughts do not happen because you are seperate. > > Thoughts and emotions occurr for many and specific reasons, fear is > just one emotion which has the capacity to affect thinking in a > particular and restricted way. > Every emotion has the capacity to do likewise. Thoughts also cause > emotions. And thoughts can occurr in isolation also. Maybe so, but I don't feel that this is so in my case. > > > > > A ME and thoughts about the future can bring the exact opposite > and > > > everywhere in-between, > > > thoughts about the future can inspire, bring joy, happiness, > > > expectation and so on. > > > > > > Why *select* such a narrow belief? > > > > > > Again, this is a broad assumption with a selected narrow cause to > > > explain a belief that a ME has. > > > > Thinking about the future in a positive way always contains the > often > > hidden fact that these thoughts are a form of a dream world> > > If you are talking about winning lotto yes, if you are talking about > having a family get together, going on a holiday, these expectations > will be different. > > Thinking about the future does not imply fear. Thinking about the future always contain the element of uncertainty, and this uncertainty _is_ fear. > > > >an in > > order for this dream to come true, the world must not hinder > the 'me' > > to fulfill them, and o my does the world make hinders: so this > breeds > > fear in an often hidden way > > > > You have created the blanket a fear. > > > > > > What happens when you look for this 'blanket of fear'? ( with a > > > detachment higher than the level of mind that created it ) > > > > The blanket of fear is often supressed during our buzy day> > > > This is not introspection. > You are not looking for a 'blanket of fear'. > > This is another conception using again the original conception of > a 'blanket of fear': > > 'the blanket of fear is often supressed...'. > > With introspection it is not possible to find a 'blanket of fear' > because a blanket of fear is something you have created. > It's 'supression during the day' is another created conception. > Neither of these are real. > > The level of mind that introspects with detachment is higher than > that which created these conceptions. > Introspection allows you to work with, and forces you to face, the > raw emotions not just conceptions used for explanation. > > It allows you to see *why* the fears you mentioned happen, and if in > fact they are *true* fears, as well as why a 'blanket of fear' as a > conception is needed or why it is being used. The intellect can never know why fear appear and why it appear in a particular form. No intellectual analysis is capable of finding a single or multiple cause other than the realization that fear is an interconnected thing, and trying to separate out a particular fear and analyze it is itself a never ending fear-based process. :-) > > > but when > > we are not buzy this blanket (the pain body) can be felt as > > restlessness, boredom, sourness, anger e t c> > > > The blanket of fear and pain body are are not real. > > The above are emotions which are real ( if you are genuinely > experiencing them ). > You are creating a 'blanket of fear' out of them as a conception ( > for a reason or a need ) > > But more important than the conception is the emotions themselves. > Why does restlessness, boredom and sourness *occurr*?; > > These emotions do not happen because of a blanket of fear, nor are > they themselves a blanket of fear. > > A 'blanket of fear' does not happen because of these emotions, nor is > a blanket of fear these emotions; a blanket of fear is *created* by > you and spoken about because of a *reason or a need*. > > If you were to go looking for this blanket of fear, you would not and > could not find it. > > Why then does the need arise to create a 'blanket of fear'?; What is > the reason or cause? There may be a single cause, and that is the idea of being a separate 'me', but the intellect cannot know this for sure. The pain body, the innner conflict can be sensed as a contracted energy field in the body. Don't try to analyze it. Sense it directly. Observe with an intelligence that is more than just the intellect. > > A blanket of fear is a conception that is *used to explain* personal > *beliefs* to *yourself*, then this blanket of fear get supressed as > another conception to explain belief. > > A blanket of fear is initially created to explain a belief, then > given the notion of being supressed during the day, but none of this > is real. > > I think you said it was Ken Wilber who spoke about a 'pain body'. > I believe this is a very misleading and non-useful term. Ken Wilber used the term ego contraction in the body, I believe. Eckhart Tolle uses the term pain body. There is nothing to explain here. *Feel* the contraction inside yourself. Sense the 'scary animal' in you that needs to be protected from the 'outside world'. Even a stiff neck, numbness in the heart region, lingering pain in the back e t c are signs of this contraction. Push a finger hard against different muscles in your face and you will feel painful areas that you didn't even know about. These are parts of the ego contraction, and that is only in your face! > > Man has already been described as consisting of various bodies like > the emotional body, astral body, mental body, causal body, etheric > double, vital sheath, and so on, saying that we now have a pain body > causes more unneeded confusion and makes introspection more difficult. > > People start using this term as a form of blame, e.g: my 'pain body' > gets worse on weekends, the 'pain body' becomes heavy when I work to > hard, the 'blanket of fear' get supressed during the day etc. > > People start saying things like *the* or *my* pain body or *the* > blanket of fear, speaking of them as if they are real things capable > of affecting one's self, when really there is no such thing. > > It is that persons conception that they have created that is > affecting them or is being used to explain how they are affected or > could be affected by something that they hold responsible or are > blaming. > > These statements are not working with the real causes, they are > blaming or shifting blame away from the true causes and / or they are > used to support the personal *beliefs* of someone who *feels that > fear is responsible*. > > If you were to approach a psychologist or psychiatrist and speak to > them of a 'pain body' or 'blanket of fear', I imagine the first thing > they would do is ask you what it consists of and where it is, they > would show you that it is only a conception, by looking in and > showing you that you have created it *because* of fear, or because of > a need to explain a *belief* you have about *fear being the > responsible factor*. If a psychologist would experience the difference between the contracted ego body and the tremendous relief of pain body dissolving there would be no question, it would then be similar to expalain: " What is anger? I really don't understand what you mean by anger " , the psychologist says. " I think you are fooling yourself, this anger or what you call it, there is no such thing, it is only a conception in your mind " :-) > > The techniques that psychologists use are the same as what mystics > and others use to determine *accurate* self knowledge. > Accurate self knowledge is not happening and not possible whilst > created conceptions are being used to explain beliefs. > > > > > >If you don't see this right away, then some > > > introspection is needed> > > > > > > > > > You have asserted a blanket of fear, then said if it is not > > realized > > > that introspection is needed. > > > If one has introspected there cannot be any blanket of fear. > > > > > > Identifying a blanket of fear is a worrying ME or it is a ME > trying > > > to explain and identify fear as a cause to explain a belief held. > > > > Introspection can reveal the fear yes> > > > A blanket of fear is not a fear. > > A 'blanket of fear' is a creation of a ( worrying ) ME explaining > reasons why fear is to be feared. > > Introspection should also make it obvious why these conceptions have > been used or why they are needed. > > > and then the fear actually can > > increase, but if one stays in that state of introspection the fear > is > > being burned up. > > > Fear does not burn up 'by itself'. Oh, yes, it does. > > In order to change, one must see and *recognize* their behaviour, > thoughts, thinking and emotions objectively, by passive observance; > fear cannot burn up by itself if looked at; > > A ME has to recognize *why* fear ( or any other emotion etc ) occurrs > then one can act with the awareness of the normal reactions it should > or wants to undergo, instead of these emotions being automatic or > instinctual they become things which one is acutely aware of. > > So as soon as the emotion arises it is like a little alarm bell > ringing and you know that the emotion can be released, thrown away or > changed 'mid-arising', after a time these emotions do not arise. > > > The following is the essence; > > There are really no excuses for a ME complaining about fear and > giving reasons as conceptions of how fear works and *what it is > capable of doing to them*, *if they are genuinely interested in > ridding themselves of *genuine* problems*. > The indication is, that if someone can genuinely explain how fear > affects them then this is not a genuine problem. > For if they are the correct reasons of how that someone is affected > by genuine problems and not just reasons being used to explain > beliefs then the correct introspection should have relieved a ME of > the burden of speaking about how and why they are being affected. You are stuck on the level of the intellect. This is not about intellectual analysis, this is about direct sensing the contraction in one's mind and body. Not even a million years of analysis would resolve this problem. This problem can only be resolved from a level higher than thought. > > > > > > Do you know yourself *as you truly are* in order to see fear for > > > *what it is and does*, or are you seeing fear for what you > > *believe* > > > it is and does. > > > > Fear is one emotion only, and fear only happens to a ME; it is a > ME > > > that fears and worries about fear itself. > > > > > > The same ME that experiences fear is capable of penetrating to > the > > > cause of it but *not* whilst they are involving themselves in > using > > > fear to *explain* personal beliefs of that same ME. > > > > > > Whilst this is occurring introspection is *impossible* since > fears > > > held as beliefs are false fears used only as explanations and not > > > fears that are truly occurring to the ME that is creating them ( > as > > > beliefs ). > > > > > > **In order to explain, a ME invents or *holds fear responsible* > as > > a > > > cause for *beliefs* it is trying to explain to itself** > > > > Introspection must be momore than only an intellectual analysis. > One's > whole being must be 'observed' deeply. > > > Introspection is not happening ( not possible ) whilst one is *using* > false causes such as what has been attributed to fear. > > It is the *trying for explanation of beliefs* that is creating the > various causes that you have been holding fear as being responsible > for. But can't you see that you are stuck on a level of explanations? > > But these are not fears, they are opinions and conceptions in support > of beliefs ( about why fear is to be feared, a belief ) > > These concepts are not *needed*, they are created by a ME that is > making it's own fears to explain to itself why fear is such a > powerful force ( over ) itself and / or others. > > Under introspection these conceptions cannot exist because they *only > exist* to support the explanation of why a ME holds fear as being to > blame for so many different assumptions. > > These conceptions serve the *need* to explain why a ME thinks fear is > such a powerful force. > > This would be obvious to anyone that introspects for the right > reasons of genuinely wanting to get rid of genuine fears, whoever > acted with detachment, sincerity and honesty could easily recognize > this. There are no genuine fears, all fears are a contraction caused by a sense of separation. You cannot heal this sense of separation _from_ a sense of separation. > > Is it possible that you are not experiencing the numerous fears you > have expressed, and that they have not manifested in the way you have > suggested? > > That you are assuming initially that fear is to blame and then > creating conceptions about fear to support this belief? I see fear as a needed state in order to create the experience of separation. There _must_ first be the experience of separation in order for reality to experience itself. But this separation is only a painful step in evolution I believe. From the experience of separation reality then begins to integrate itself into wholeness again, not indifferentiated wholeness as it was before separation, but wholeness _with_ the sense of separation still intact. (I) The One (Big Bang), (II) The Many (Life on earth now), (III) The One and the Many (the next step in human evolution). /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2004 Hi again, > > Unfathomable awareness is trapped in the form of a person, and that > > person is doing things all the time> > > > How can something which is free be trapped? > > Awareness is not trapped, a ME is bound. >What you call a ME I call a form of/in awareness> Doesn't this definition cover all phenomenon ( to you )? > The desciption of holding on to > > nothing but consciousness is similar to hold on to " I am " - it is > the > > stick that stirs the fire and in the end the stick itself is burned > > up. > > > If there is something to be *done*, ( something which needs doing by > a ME ) then that ME is bound. > > 'I am' is a pointer, as too is the advice above. > > There is nothing that a ME can DO to attain; that it *has* to DO to > attain, because there is nothing *for* a ME to attain. > > *Only a ME can follow advice, and a ME doing or following advice is a > ME bound* > > Can any ME follow this advice for an outcome to be achieved, can a ME > see itself as consciousness or hold onto consciousness? > > If a ME follows the advice, that ME is bound, if a ME follows it with > an expectation of a ME acheiving or attaining then that ME is also > bound. >The ME is a form in consciousness (or the One cosmic stuff) and as such is a relative appearance not able to do anything in or by itself> A ME is capable of doing, it is the whole that cannot do. A ME is not a form of the 'one cosmic stuff', all phenomenon / stuff is not the same one phenomenonal stuff. Everything is mind and mind is not all one and the same stuff or phenomenal thing, saying that a ME is simply a form does not make it unable to act or do. > >Without thinking about past and future there is > > no 'me' who needs to be protected or promoted> > > > There is a ME even if the past and future are not thought about. > > Thinking about the past and future does not create a ME. > > Thinking about the past and future is one of things a ME does, not > what a ME is. >Yes, the 'I am' still remains even when there is no past or future> >if you want to include the impersonal awareness as a part of the ME> A ME exists even if the past and future are not thought about. ME is not 'I am', I am is a concept also. >If you look at it closely, then you will find that thinking and feeling/emotion always go together> Thinking and emotions do not always go together, and need not, thinking can occurr in isolation without any emotive content whatsoever, emotions are real forms that not only can exist seperately, they do exist seperately and distinctly from thoughts. There is no way of combining an emotion and a thought even if you wanted to because they exist in different spectrums of reality, it would be like trying to mix oil and water. Thinking can cause emotions, emotions can causes thinking. >Thinking is the result of a fragmented process and the force that drives this process is fear> No, thinking occurrs for many different reasons, even for individual thoughts arising, and why they arise. This has nothing to do with fear. Fear only drives thinking in specific and restricted cases, ( like any other emotion ) and thinking also causes emotions, it is not responsible for all thought and it is a untested guess ( to support a belief ) to think so. > >Thinking is a fear based process> > > > No, thinking is not a fear dependent or a fear based process. >I use fear here in the broadest sense of the word. Everything that needs to be fixed, added, scrutinized through analysis, planned, understood, controlled, or fixed into a conceptual framework I call fear> In the broadest sense of the word fear is not responsible for thinking. You are blaming fear in support of your belief that is it a responsible factor. >Are you sure thought is needed?> Yes. >There may be a state of mind that works at a level above thought where everything is directly seen fully in a complete way> There is 'perception' above the level of thought, thought is observed, but thinking is still needed, it is a natural part of what we do and what we need to function within the world. >Thought itself is always fragmented,limited, and empty in itself, and that is why thought breeds fear> Thoughts cause many things, fear is only one restricted thing that thought causes. >Thought is never sure of _anything_> Thoughts are not unsure. It is a ME that is unsure, worried or insecure. >and this inherent insecurity_is_ fear> It is only a ME that feels fear and a ME so willing can find out the root and cause of this fear. Fear is not the cause of fear. Again, I think you are assuming fear to be the problem initially then explaining why it is the problem for you. 'The person who fears he will suffer, already suffers from the fear' > Have you looked at fears you are having, are they real fears, or are > the fears you have mentioned ways of explaining beliefs? >The fears I sense are all related to my thinking, to my mental image of the world and myself> You can change your thinking. >My mental image is divided into a separate 'me' and the rest of the world, and this inevitably breeds fear> Any mental images are being constructed by a ME to explain a belief a ME has. Who divides the world into ME and the world to then create the fear? > The degree to which this protection of self image is required varies > *tremendously* from person to person. >Yes, that may be so, but you only have to watch the news and commercials on TV to see that our society is fear-based>> A persons self image is not all dependent upon the news, tv, commercials or anything external, these are some things which affect our thinking. But we can change our thinking. It could well be that the most powerful man in the world George Bush has a very real need to protect his self image. Other people like a Zen monk who understands their mind *intimately* has absolutely no need to protect a self image. > Again, introspection is the magic wand that allows one to see > themselves as they *truly are* and why this protection of self image > is either necessary or unnecesary and to what degree. >Yes, introspection can give insight, but true liberation comes from grace I believe> What becomes liberated, who is trapped to become liberated? > No, the ego isn't created from a ME thinking about the past and > future, thinking about the past and future are some of the things a > ME does, they are not a ME. >I define the ego as the past and future 'me'> A ME still exists when it is not considering the past and future. > A ME worrying about the future is not the cause of a ME worrying. > > Unless you can find out the causes of why you are worrying, worrying > will continue. > > How much of this is genuine worry, that you are actually experiencing > and how much of it is simply being used in the form of an explanation > of how you think the labelling of fear can help to explain beliefs? >I am saying that _no_ worry is genuine, that all worry is an illusion, a distrust in the universe, and a phony trust in the 'little separate me'> It is you that are both creating reasons to worry and giving reasons to explain how this is possible. >and _because_ we trust the little me and not the universe as a whole, there is worry, but this worry is too a part of the universe and needed as long as it is needed.> It is not a matter of need, it is a matter of that is the way it is. Yet if you are worrying you can figure out why, it seems to me that you are not trying to figure out why you are worrying but trying to explain how worry happens and find examples to explain how it affects or can affect you. Which means this is not a genuine problem but an explaination to support a belief you have. You are searching for a problem held as belief and then outlining how you are being affected or how you think you could be. > If you are genuinely having these thoughts then you can find out why > you are having them by finding out the cause through introspection. > > I don't think that you are experiencing all the fears you have listed > in the previous email, nor that they are manifesting in the way you > have described them. >I think that all fears are casused by the evolutionary step from animal human to mature human> This is another conception to explain a belief about why fear has the power of influence you are giving it. >Fear itself has genetic roots that goes down into the entire ecological record of life on earth, ca 3 billion years ago> As *instinctual behaviour*, but what makes us different, or should make us different as developed beings, what separates us from the animals is mindful behaviour, not reactive instinctual behaviour. >Humanity is based not only on society and culture, but also on the human gene pool which probably streches all the way to the first single cellular life forms, and maybe even further 'back' than that. The next step in human evolution is I believe the realization that we are all one, and that there is nothing to fear.> The need to overcome fear is the fear you are making but not looking to the cause of. > >I have lowered my threshold > > for what I consider to be fear, and the lower I go, the more I am > > convinced that virtually all my thoughts are fear-based> > > > Maybe it is your definition of fear that you are changing, or the > breadth of it's action to explain beliefs; how it can be used to > explain beliefs you hold, and how it can be used to explain beliefs > you hold about fear *itself* as used in explanations? >Take a look at people when you walk in a city. That should convince you that we live in a fear-based society> Fear does not live in society, it lives in peoples minds. Quite literally fear exists in peoples mind / bodies not 'out there' somewhere. Anyone willing to look carefully, and honestly at the way their mind works can see this for themselves. >Watch TV, and notice how fear is the underlaying force there. We don't need any analysis to see this. Direct observation reveals the truth instantly. > I have no doubt that fear is used to control people, the question then becomes how susceptible are you and why? Someone who looks for fear is not exactly helping themselves to resisting being a slave to it. Are you increasing your capacity fof experiencing fear or decreasing it? It would be like someone who hates spiders looking everywhere for them, then explaining why they are scared of spiders, and what spiders are capable of doing to them. People who are having genuine fears as genuine problems do not look for them or go about explaining. I also believe that your fears are not genuine but are being used to explain beliefs you have about fear being the responsible party or something that can be blamed as a cause which *allows* a belief to be held. >Maybe we are so used to live in this way that we actually don't see that fear is running the world.> Fear isn't running the world, it is only you and your take on the world. You are looking for fear, finding it and feeding this fear machine you have created. Why do you feel fear? You do not feel fear because of the explaination you have given, these are simply reasons to fear fear more or to explain why fear has so much influence which is your belief about fear itself, what it is and what it is capable of. This is not introspection. You are looking for causes and conceptions to support your beliefs of why fear has power over you, to show how fear has control over you and how it is responsible in order to support beliefs you have about it. This is the opposite of introspection which can tell you the true causes of true fears, or which fears are not true fears. > When I rise > > the threshold, then I would not call my thoughts to be fearful, > just > > ordinary thoughts. > > > Again, I think you are holding fear responsible not for what it is or > what it is capable of doing, not even for the effects of how it > *actually* manifests to you, but that you are using or blaming fear > to explain beliefs you hold. >I am just desribing what I observe directly in me, and in other people.> You are not directly observing or introspecting, ( this was the point I am trying to make). You are creating reasons why fear has or can have so much power or influence over you. If you were directly observing there would not be a 'blanket of fear' created to explain a belief. > >But I have done some pretty heavy introspection > > and I can see exactly what J. Krishnamurti talked about when he > > described the fragmented and fearful mind> > > > If you have *truly* introspected then a 'blanket of fear' would not > be something that you would *need* to create or speak about as having > a seperate existence and having an existence that was able to have > any capacity of power or influence over you. >But fear _is_ the main driving force in our society, it is all too obvious. Is society responsible or did society create your 'blanket of fear'? Society does not need a blanket of fear, the 'blanket of fear' is needed by you ( for a reason ) >Everything is one interconnected wholeness, and humanity as a whole is one interconnected wholeness> >Humanity will evolve and the next step will be the realization of fearlessness I believe> >The Danish philosopher Martinus said that humanity will become real humans in three thousand years, or something like that> What is a real human? >According to him, humanity at this moment is living in a dark zone between the animal kingdom and real human kindom, so we are half animals and half humans right now according to him. :-)>> We are animals, any humanness is what we have given to ourselves. We are not special, just *unique*. > > > Are you truly seeing *your emotions and their causes* or are you > > > *thinking* about emotions and causes and using fear as one > emotion > > to > > > explain *beliefs* you ( a ME ) holds? > > > > > > The same ME that thinks about it's problems is the same ME that > > > creates them and the same ME that is capable of resolving them. > > > > All thinking and all my emotions - or at least almost all of them - > > come from the root idea that I am a separate and vulnerable human > > being who constantly needs to be protected (consciously and > > subconsciously). > > > Thoughts do not happen because you are seperate. > > Thoughts and emotions occurr for many and specific reasons, fear is > just one emotion which has the capacity to affect thinking in a > particular and restricted way. > Every emotion has the capacity to do likewise. Thoughts also cause > emotions. And thoughts can occurr in isolation also. >Maybe so, but I don't feel that this is so in my case> This is not something that you can feel or think is so. You can only know how thoughts arise by looking at mind. >Thinking about the future always contain the element of uncertainty, and this uncertainty _is_ fear> Expectation can also bring joy and happiness. Your effort to prove fear responsible for all it can be and do to you, and all it is capable of, cannot help but make fear a stronger and more powerful affect over you and your life. > >an in > > order for this dream to come true, the world must not hinder > the 'me' > > to fulfill them, and o my does the world make hinders: so this > breeds > > fear in an often hidden way > > > > You have created the blanket a fear. > > > > > > What happens when you look for this 'blanket of fear'? ( with a > > > detachment higher than the level of mind that created it ) > > > > The blanket of fear is often supressed during our buzy day> > > > This is not introspection. > You are not looking for a 'blanket of fear'. > > This is another conception using again the original conception of > a 'blanket of fear': > > 'the blanket of fear is often supressed...'. > > With introspection it is not possible to find a 'blanket of fear' > because a blanket of fear is something you have created. > It's 'supression during the day' is another created conception. > Neither of these are real. > > The level of mind that introspects with detachment is higher than > that which created these conceptions. > Introspection allows you to work with, and forces you to face, the > raw emotions not just conceptions used for explanation. > > It allows you to see *why* the fears you mentioned happen, and if in > fact they are *true* fears, as well as why a 'blanket of fear' as a > conception is needed or why it is being used. >The intellect can never know why fear appear and why it appear in a particular form> This is the whole purpose of self assessment and introspection. It is possible to know why a fear appears and the cause of it, so long as one can dis-engage and look at themselves objectively passive observance. This detachment is what brings the real causes to the surface, when normally they are within the everyday tick tock reaction. Most of our fears are not true fears. Most of the fears you have expressed have been created by you to explain why fear has influence over you. You are looking for ways of proving fear is the guilty party. >No intellectual analysis is capable of finding a single or multiple cause other than the realization that fear is an interconnected thing,> It is possible to find the cause of fears, this is one of the things a psychologist or psychiatrist does. If it were not possible it would not be possible to overcome our fears, we must recognize the fear as a true fear and then recognize why it is a fear. >and trying to separate out a particular fear and analyze it is itself a never ending fear-based process. :-) We are not analyzing fear, this is what you have been doing. Introspection is self observance, rational detached and objective. In taking of stock of your fears have you maintained a rational observance of how much affect fear holds sway over your life? In what you have written the opposite is true, you are assuming fear is a burden then trying to show how it influences you. > A 'blanket of fear' does not happen because of these emotions, nor is > a blanket of fear these emotions; a blanket of fear is *created* by > you and spoken about because of a *reason or a need*. > > If you were to go looking for this blanket of fear, you would not and > could not find it. > > Why then does the need arise to create a 'blanket of fear'?; What is > the reason or cause? >There may be a single cause, and that is the idea of being a separate 'me'> The idea of being a seperate ME is not why you have created the notion of a 'blanket of fear'. There is a need or a reason why you have used the concept of a 'blanket of fear'. >but the intellect cannot know this for sure> >The pain body, the innner conflict can be sensed as a contracted energy field in the body> The 'pain body' does not exist. >Don't try to analyze it. Sense it directly. Observe with an intelligence that is more than just the intellect> The pain body is a conception, it is not real. The more you analyze it and speak about it as having a real existence the more bound you are to being susceptible to its influence. ( self induced ) > A blanket of fear is a conception that is *used to explain* personal > *beliefs* to *yourself*, then this blanket of fear get supressed as > another conception to explain belief. > > A blanket of fear is initially created to explain a belief, then > given the notion of being supressed during the day, but none of this > is real. > > I think you said it was Ken Wilber who spoke about a 'pain body'. > I believe this is a very misleading and non-useful term. >Ken Wilber used the term ego contraction in the body, I believe. Eckhart Tolle uses the term pain body> Both of these are not real. >There is nothing to explain here. *Feel* the contraction inside yourself> I cannot feel a conception of yours. >Sense the 'scary animal' in you that needs to be protected from the 'outside world'> You have created the 'scary animal'. You are giving it life by speaking about it and increasing your own fears. Before this conversation I did not know this 'scary animal' and after it I will forget it also. >Even a stiff neck, numbness in the heart region> There is a reason why you a feeling this, and that reason is not a 'pain body' or 'ego contraction', these are conceptions or panaceas to explain or blame. It seems that you are looking for ways of confirming that you are experiencing fears and the person who looks will find. They do not and cannot help in explaining the *real* cause of fears, they are ways of explaining pain or blaming. People read about a pain body and the 'symptoms', if they are experiencing something, they may start saying my pain body is bad again today, my ego contraction becomes heavy before bed, this is a way of re-inforcing psycho-somatic illness. Self confirmation of our fears that fear is responsible. >lingering pain in the back e t c are signs of this contraction> This is a silly statement. How do you tell the difference between a unnoticed muscle sprain and an 'ego contraction'? >Push a finger hard against different muscles in your face and you will feel painful areas that you didn't even know about> I am sure you would if you did the above. How many people do you know besides yourself that are looking for a 'pain body'? >These are parts of the ego contraction, and that is only in your face!> The ego contraction does not exist, you are creating it, and also giving explainations and support to how it exists. Ken Wilber and Eckhart Tolle gave you a pain body. Before Ken Wilber, before Eckhart Tolle, before you read about these things, where was the ego contraction and pain body? > If you were to approach a psychologist or psychiatrist and speak to > them of a 'pain body' or 'blanket of fear', I imagine the first thing > they would do is ask you what it consists of and where it is, they > would show you that it is only a conception, by looking in and > showing you that you have created it *because* of fear, or because of > a need to explain a *belief* you have about *fear being the > responsible factor*. >If a psychologist would experience the difference between the contracted ego body and the tremendous relief of pain body dissolving there would be no question> A contracted ego and pain body are ( 2 different ) conceptions they are not real. Have you experienced these two *conceptions* ( in order to tell a psychiatrist how *he* would react to *your* conceptions )? A psychiatrist would tell you that these two things are conceptions used to explain or impart or transfer blame, or to support a belief you have of how an emotion such as fear has an influence over you, it is assumed initially then explained and re-inforced. >it would then be similar to expalain: " What is anger?> >I really don't understand what you mean by anger " , the psychologist says. " I think you are fooling yourself, this anger or what you call it, there is no such thing, it is only a conception in your mind " :-)> Anger is real, it is a real emotion, a blanket of fear is a created conception, a psychologist knows what you mean when you say 'I am angry', he knows when you say 'The blanket of fear gets supressed during the day' that this is a conception used to explain a belief to yourself. We feel anger as a universally recognized phenomenon, nobody feels a 'blanket of fear' or a 'blanket of fear being supressed during the day' except those that have created this blanket of fear to explain why fear holds sway over them or supports beliefs they have about fear having power over them. These conceptions re-inforce fear as being guilty as charged ( a belief ) > > Introspection can reveal the fear yes> > > > A blanket of fear is not a fear. > > A 'blanket of fear' is a creation of a ( worrying ) ME explaining > reasons why fear is to be feared. > > Introspection should also make it obvious why these conceptions have > been used or why they are needed. > > > and then the fear actually can > > increase, but if one stays in that state of introspection the fear > is > > being burned up. > > > Fear does not burn up 'by itself'. >Oh, yes, it does> No, fear cannot burn up by itself, first it must be recognized correctly and the cause identified correctly. > In order to change, one must see and *recognize* their behaviour, > thoughts, thinking and emotions objectively, by passive observance; > fear cannot burn up by itself if looked at; > > A ME has to recognize *why* fear ( or any other emotion etc ) occurrs > then one can act with the awareness of the normal reactions it should > or wants to undergo, instead of these emotions being automatic or > instinctual they become things which one is acutely aware of. > > So as soon as the emotion arises it is like a little alarm bell > ringing and you know that the emotion can be released, thrown away or > changed 'mid-arising', after a time these emotions do not arise. > > > The following is the essence; > > There are really no excuses for a ME complaining about fear and > giving reasons as conceptions of how fear works and *what it is > capable of doing to them*, *if they are genuinely interested in > ridding themselves of *genuine* problems*. > The indication is, that if someone can genuinely explain how fear > affects them then this is not a genuine problem. > For if they are the correct reasons of how that someone is affected > by genuine problems and not just reasons being used to explain > beliefs then the correct introspection should have relieved a ME of > the burden of speaking about how and why they are being affected. >You are stuck on the level of the intellect> This is not about intellectual analysis> The intellect is required in order to explain. Introspection is not intellectual analysis but what I have explained above requires the intellect in order to convey to you what I mean. The actual process of introspection is not intellectually thinking about your problems, nor is it intellectual analysis. >this is about direct sensing the contraction in one's mind and body> This contraction is a conception that is being confirmed by you. You are looking for symptoms which will confirm and re-inforce your belief. >Not even a million years of analysis would resolve this problem> I was speaking about and we have been discussing methods of getting rid of genuine fears. I have said that I do not believe your fears are genuine and given reasons why this is so. What is the nature of the problem that you have identified? >This problem can only be resolved from a level higher than thought. Have you recognized a problem, if so what is it? If you can explain why you are feeling genuine fears and how to fix it then you do not have a genuine problem. > > > Do you know yourself *as you truly are* in order to see fear for > > > *what it is and does*, or are you seeing fear for what you > > *believe* > > > it is and does. > > > > Fear is one emotion only, and fear only happens to a ME; it is a > ME > > > that fears and worries about fear itself. > > > > > > The same ME that experiences fear is capable of penetrating to > the > > > cause of it but *not* whilst they are involving themselves in > using > > > fear to *explain* personal beliefs of that same ME. > > > > > > Whilst this is occurring introspection is *impossible* since > fears > > > held as beliefs are false fears used only as explanations and not > > > fears that are truly occurring to the ME that is creating them ( > as > > > beliefs ). > > > > > > **In order to explain, a ME invents or *holds fear responsible* > as > > a > > > cause for *beliefs* it is trying to explain to itself** > > > > Introspection must be momore than only an intellectual analysis. > One's > whole being must be 'observed' deeply. > > > Introspection is not happening ( not possible ) whilst one is *using* > false causes such as what has been attributed to fear. > > It is the *trying for explanation of beliefs* that is creating the > various causes that you have been holding fear as being responsible > for. >But can't you see that you are stuck on a level of explanations?> I am not trying to explain fear to myself. This is what I wrote in reference to how you were speaking of fear; *It is the *trying for explanation of beliefs* that is creating the various causes that you have been holding fear as being responsible for* > But these are not fears, they are opinions and conceptions in support > of beliefs ( about why fear is to be feared, a belief ) > > These concepts are not *needed*, they are created by a ME that is > making it's own fears to explain to itself why fear is such a > powerful force ( over ) itself and / or others. > > Under introspection these conceptions cannot exist because they *only > exist* to support the explanation of why a ME holds fear as being to > blame for so many different assumptions. > > These conceptions serve the *need* to explain why a ME thinks fear is > such a powerful force. > > This would be obvious to anyone that introspects for the right > reasons of genuinely wanting to get rid of genuine fears, whoever > acted with detachment, sincerity and honesty could easily recognize > this. >There are no genuine fears, all fears are a contraction caused by a sense of separation> You have listed the fears that you have said are affecting you. Fears are not contractions or pain bodies, these are conceptions to explain. >You cannot heal this sense of separation _from_a sense of separation> Love exists because of separation. > Is it possible that you are not experiencing the numerous fears you > have expressed, and that they have not manifested in the way you have > suggested? > > That you are assuming initially that fear is to blame and then > creating conceptions about fear to support this belief? >I see fear as a needed state in order to create the experience of separation> You have given fear another reason for existing. >There _must_ first be the experience of separation in order for reality to experience itself> >But this separation is only a painful step in evolution I believe> Love requires seperation? Some people see the fear in the world, some see love, some see happiness, and each responds to what it sees, the snarls or smiles both grow accordingly. >From the experience of separation reality then begins to integrate itself into wholeness again, not indifferentiated wholeness as it was before separation, but wholeness _with_ the sense of separation still intact. (I) The One (Big Bang), (II) The Many (Life on earth now), (III) The One and the Many (the next step in human evolution).> This is a current mythology. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > > Unfathomable awareness is trapped in the form of a person, and > that > > > person is doing things all the time> > > > > > > How can something which is free be trapped? > > > > Awareness is not trapped, a ME is bound. > > >What you call a ME I call a form of/in awareness> > > > Doesn't this definition cover all phenomenon ( to you )? > To say that a ME is all phenomenon experienced is a good definition I think. <snip> You wrote that the 'pain body' is only a concept. Yes, of course it is. You also wrote that anger is not a concept in the same way. Anger is a concept, just as pain body is a concept. We all know what we mean by anger, so this concept has a very solid foundation in what we actually experience and observe. The concept pain body is not established and one has to discover the foundation for it oneself by introspection. The pain body is a composite description of the inner conflict in the entire body/mind mechanism. Ken Wilber talks about a concept called 'holon' as a description of a whole/part relationship, and in that sense the pain body can be called a psychosomatic holon. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Hi again, > > Doesn't this definition cover all phenomenon ( to you )? > > > > To say that a ME is all phenomenon experienced is a good definition I > think. A ME is not all phenomenon. This is not what I have been meaning when I use the term ME. > <snip> > > You wrote that the 'pain body' is only a concept. Yes, of course it > is. > More than being a concept, it is a concept used for a *purpose, need or reason* >You also wrote that anger is not a concept in the same way. Anger > is a concept, just as pain body is a concept> Anger is a real emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a concept. Speaking of a 'pain body' is a way to support a belief and / or re- inforce beliefs by confirming that one is suffering from symptoms that ones expects to see. This 'pain body' which only exists as concept, gets blamed for the feelings a person is experiencing, which transfers the blame from the real causes and makes introspection impossible. This pain body would dissolve upon true introspection. >We all know what we > mean by anger, so this concept has a very solid foundation in what we > actually experience and observe. The concept pain body is not > established and one has to discover the foundation for it oneself by > introspection> Introspection would not allow one to find a pain body, looking for or trying to discover a pain body is the opposite of introspection. So too is the blaming of a pain body or the speaking of a pain body as real and having an effect on someone or being responsible somehow for their predicament. >The pain body is a composite description of the inner > conflict in the entire body/mind mechanism.> The pain body does not exist, it is a concept that has been created. It is only appearing because you want to see it and you need to have it there. Ken Wilber talks about a > concept called 'holon' as a description of a whole/part relationship, > and in that sense the pain body can be called a psychosomatic holon. A pain body is not a real thing, it is a conception. I did not know ( or need to know ) what a 'holon' is until I read the above. And neither do you need to know that a 'holon' is a term originally used by Arthur Koestler to mean; 'a part of the universe which is complete and consistent in itself, but is also an necessary integral part of a greater system which encompasses it' - in order to discover why fears are affecting you. A 'pain body' is not a part of the universe that is complete and consistent in itself....and a necessary part of a greater system which encompasses it' A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. By trying to explain what a pain body is you are giving it more reality, more life, more influence over you. The initial conception of pain body is not needed in order to discover true fears and the description is not needed to try and make the conception more real. So long as you are involved in keeping alive conceptions to confirm or use to explain beliefs you have about fear or how fear can affect you, you will be susceptible to fear and it's influence. A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a reason or need why you are keeping it. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > Doesn't this definition cover all phenomenon ( to you )? > > > > > > > To say that a ME is all phenomenon experienced is a good definition > I > > think. > > > A ME is not all phenomenon. > This is not what I have been meaning when I use the term ME. But you must admit that that's a pretty cool definition of a ME. I mean, look at yourself and the world, and what is that? All phenomenon observed by an observer. The phenomenal world - which is the material world including body, feeling and thought - is what a ME is. > > > > <snip> > > > > You wrote that the 'pain body' is only a concept. Yes, of course it > > is. > > > > More than being a concept, it is a concept used for a *purpose, need > or reason* > > > >You also wrote that anger is not a concept in the same way. Anger > > is a concept, just as pain body is a concept> > > > Anger is a real emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > concept. The pain body is the overall sensation of separation felt in the human body/mind organism. Anger is included in this sensation called the pain body. The pain body is I think a pretty neat concept for describing the overall inner conflict in a human being. > > Speaking of a 'pain body' is a way to support a belief and / or re- > inforce beliefs by confirming that one is suffering from symptoms > that ones expects to see. > > This 'pain body' which only exists as concept, gets blamed for the > feelings a person is experiencing, which transfers the blame from the > real causes and makes introspection impossible. > > This pain body would dissolve upon true introspection. The pain body dissolves upon true introspection. It is being burned up by awareness. This may take a very long time. > > > >We all know what we > > mean by anger, so this concept has a very solid foundation in what > we > > actually experience and observe. The concept pain body is not > > established and one has to discover the foundation for it oneself > by > > introspection> > > > Introspection would not allow one to find a pain body, looking for or > trying to discover a pain body is the opposite of introspection. > > So too is the blaming of a pain body or the speaking of a pain body > as real and having an effect on someone or being responsible somehow > for their predicament. Feel the entire field in your body and mind that is resisting 'what is'. That is the pain body. > > > >The pain body is a composite description of the inner > > conflict in the entire body/mind mechanism.> > > The pain body does not exist, it is a concept that has been created. > It is only appearing because you want to see it and you need to have > it there. Osho said that the person who lived through intuition, would also feel his or her body as being orgasmic. Not orgasmic in a short or transient form, but orgasmic as resting in a complete field of peace. All the things you sense in body and mind that is not this peace is the pain body. We are so used to live in strain, pain and conflict that we don't know anything else. The entire separate 'you' is the pain body. > > > Ken Wilber talks about a > > concept called 'holon' as a description of a whole/part > relationship, > > and in that sense the pain body can be called a psychosomatic holon. > > > A pain body is not a real thing, it is a conception. > > I did not know ( or need to know ) what a 'holon' is until I read the > above. > > And neither do you need to know that a 'holon' is a term originally > used by Arthur Koestler to mean; > > 'a part of the universe which is complete and consistent in itself, > but is also an necessary integral part of a greater system which > encompasses it' - in order to discover why fears are affecting you. Yes, that is a holon. The pain body is complete and consistent in itself as being in constant (illusionary) opposition to what is. > > A 'pain body' is not a part of the universe that is complete and > consistent in itself....and a necessary part of a greater system > which encompasses it' All 'things', all holons are necessary parts of existence. > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, but don't be too quick to deem it unnecessary for other people, including your future ME. ;-) It is easy to stand on old paradigms and proclaim the old as the truth: anger is not a concept, it is the truth. Beware of standing on the platform missing the train of evolution. Just kidding, evolution will continue as it must. > > By trying to explain what a pain body is you are giving it more > reality, more life, more influence over you. Not necessarily. By recognizing the inner conflict as a totality, as a holon, one can perform introspection in a total and completely effective way. > > The initial conception of pain body is not needed in order to > discover true fears and the description is not needed to try and make > the conception more real. True fears are not many, they are one. We can deal with one fear at a time in some form of theraphy, but then you will be confronted with an endless pit of fear. To solve the problem of fear, one must by oneself be able to observe the pain body in oneself. > > So long as you are involved in keeping alive conceptions to confirm > or use to explain beliefs you have about fear or how fear can affect > you, you will be susceptible to fear and it's influence. > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a reason or > need why you are keeping it. The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate individual. The idea of being separate is the root problem. In a deeper sense, this is not a problem, but a necessary part of evolution. /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Hi again, > > > To say that a ME is all phenomenon experienced is a good > definition > > I > > > think. > > > > > > A ME is not all phenomenon. > > This is not what I have been meaning when I use the term ME. > > But you must admit that that's a pretty cool definition of a ME> As cool as I think it might be I don't think that that is going to help much >I > mean, look at yourself and the world, and what is that?> This definition covers all phenomenon, a ME is not all phenomenon. If you have been using this definition of a ME and the whole, then there is no purpose in using ME as a different definition. All > phenomenon observed by an observer.> Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when observer is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the originator of subject. The phenomenal world - which is > the material world including body, feeling and thought - is what a ME > is. No, a ME is not the material world. You are not the material world. > > Anger is a real emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > concept. > > The pain body is the overall sensation of separation felt in the > human body/mind organism> A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to confirm it's existence to yourself. Anger is included in this sensation called > the pain body> Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. Anger is an emotion. >The pain body is I think a pretty neat concept for > describing the overall inner conflict in a human being. The pain body is an unnecessary concept that is used for a reason or need. It will exist for as long as it is needed or the want is still there for it to exist. > > Speaking of a 'pain body' is a way to support a belief and / or re- > > inforce beliefs by confirming that one is suffering from symptoms > > that ones expects to see. > > > > This 'pain body' which only exists as concept, gets blamed for the > > feelings a person is experiencing, which transfers the blame from > the > > real causes and makes introspection impossible. > > > > This pain body would dissolve upon true introspection. > > The pain body dissolves upon true introspection. It is being burned > up by awareness. The pain body doesn't dissolve, it is not there originally *to* dissolve, upon introspection the *need for having the concept of a 'pain body'* is let go of. It only exists for people who have created and adopted it as concept, and hold onto it for a need or reason. >This may take a very long time.> How long did it take you to get a pain body? I would imagine you would be able to let go of the need for having a 'pain body' in anything from 1s to a minute, and the reason I say this is because 'your pain body' is mostly being used to support beliefs you have about fears and emotions. > > Introspection would not allow one to find a pain body, looking for > or > > trying to discover a pain body is the opposite of introspection. > > > > So too is the blaming of a pain body or the speaking of a pain body > > as real and having an effect on someone or being responsible > somehow > > for their predicament. > > Feel the entire field in your body and mind that is resisting 'what > is'. That is the pain body. This is the 2nd and again different definition of what a 'pain body' is. You are providing evidence for what you think is what you call a 'pain body', confirming it's existence as concept to yourself when there is no such thing outside of your need for it. You start feeling muscle contractions, pain in the back, fear, anger etc, and start to speak of a pain body being responsible, as long as this happens you can never find the *real* causes of real problems. The pain body is the blame body, real fears and real problems are not seen for what they truly are. > > The pain body does not exist, it is a concept that has been created. > > It is only appearing because you want to see it and you need to > have > > it there. > > Osho said that the person who lived through intuition, would also > feel his or her body as being orgasmic. Not orgasmic in a short or > transient form, but orgasmic as resting in a complete field of peace. > All the things you sense in body and mind that is not this peace is > the pain body.> This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that you want to have. A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you truly have, it is something that you want to have for a need or reason, without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and the 'pain body' still exists. We are so used to live in strain, pain and conflict > that we don't know anything else. The entire separate 'you' is the > pain body. This is a 4th and again different definition of a 'pain body', used for the same reasons as the other definitions. > > And neither do you need to know that a 'holon' is a term originally > > used by Arthur Koestler to mean; > > > > 'a part of the universe which is complete and consistent in itself, > > but is also an necessary integral part of a greater system which > > encompasses it' - in order to discover why fears are affecting you. > > Yes, that is a holon. The pain body is complete and consistent in > itself as being in constant (illusionary) opposition to what is. A pain body is not a holon, a holon is a necessary integral part, a pain body is unnecessary. Nobody has to have a 'pain body'; nobody does have a pain body, except those that want or need it. > > A 'pain body' is not a part of the universe that is complete and > > consistent in itself....and a necessary part of a greater system > > which encompasses it' > > All 'things', all holons are necessary parts of existence. A pain body is not a holon. > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, Why is a pain body necessary for you? >but don't be too quick > to deem it unnecessary for other people, including your future ME. ;-)> It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, and that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do you? > It is easy to stand on old paradigms and proclaim the old as the > truth: anger is not a concept> That anger is an emotion is not an old paradigm or a concept, emotions are real things, just as real as thoughts, trees and your computer. A pain body is not real, it just as real and as useful as a pink elephant, except we don't need to have a pink elephant. it is the truth. Beware of standing on > the platform missing the train of evolution. Just kidding, evolution > will continue as it must. Creating pain bodies is not becoming more aware of ones mind, it is the opposite. > > By trying to explain what a pain body is you are giving it more > > reality, more life, more influence over you. > > Not necessarily. By recognizing the inner conflict as a totality, as > a holon, one can perform introspection in a total and completely > effective way. The definition of a holon used to give description to an unnecessary concept makes your belief in that concept stronger. The concept is not only established to begin with but then one goes on to describe in detail what the pain body is and how it is capable of effecting one and that introspection is more effective with it. Introspection is not possible with a pain body, and with introspection a pain body or the need for a pain body cannot exist. All description that brings aliveness to a pain body just makes the pain body more real to you. > > The initial conception of pain body is not needed in order to > > discover true fears and the description is not needed to try and > make > > the conception more real. > > True fears are not many, they are one. We can deal with one fear at a > time in some form of theraphy, but then you will be confronted with > an endless pit of fear. True fears have different causes, not one cause, the cause of one fear is not the cause of another different fear. All fears do not have the same causes. This endless pit of fear is something that you are *already anticipating*, having not started introspection or having positively identified causes of fears. Instead of looking and anticipating the existence of a 'endless pit of fear' why not look to why this anticipation occurrs? >To solve the problem of fear, one must by > oneself be able to observe the pain body in oneself.> It is not possible to observe the pain body in oneself with introspection, try it. Anything you are seeing is your own conception being confirmed by you. A pain body is not the cause of fear, it is what is blamed, or used to support beliefs one has about fear. As long as a 'pain body' is blamed for fear, the true causes will never be found. > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a reason or > > need why you are keeping it. > > The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate > individual> This is the 5th and again different definition you have used. The pain body is something you have created and given life to by explaining how it manifests, and each time this definition has also changed. How or why do you need a pain body? If you were to think about 'Why do I need this thing called a pain body which is only a conception?' you would see that it is an unnecessary concept that you are holding onto for a need to support belief. >The idea of being separate is the root problem. > There is only you, as a ME that is making it ( separation ) a problem or excuse for a problem. In a > deeper sense, this is not a problem, but a necessary part of > evolution. Whatever you say then so mote it be to you. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > > To say that a ME is all phenomenon experienced is a good > > definition > > > I > > > > think. > > > > > > > > > A ME is not all phenomenon. > > > This is not what I have been meaning when I use the term ME. > > > > But you must admit that that's a pretty cool definition of a ME> > > > As cool as I think it might be I don't think that that is going to > help much > > > >I > > mean, look at yourself and the world, and what is that?> > > > This definition covers all phenomenon, a ME is not all phenomenon. > > If you have been using this definition of a ME and the whole, then > there is no purpose in using ME as a different definition. The whole is not *mere* phenomenality. The whole is a thing-in- itself, or as far as we can talk about an absolute thing. A ME is not a thing-in-itself. A ME only exists as a separate relative entity. > > > All > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when observer > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > originator of subject. Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is ultimately not two, but as a phenomenon, there is the observer and there is the observed, just as my body is not the same as a tree I observe. Ultimately my body and the tree are one, but as a phenomenal experience there is separation between the observer and the observed. Me and the tree are separate appearances. > > > The phenomenal world - which is > > the material world including body, feeling and thought - is what a > ME > > is. > > > No, a ME is not the material world. > You are not the material world. What I mean by material world includes such things as thoughts and feelings. > > > > > Anger is a real emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > > concept. > > > > The pain body is the overall sensation of separation felt in the > > human body/mind organism> > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > confirm it's existence to yourself. A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all conflicting emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is not a thing-in-itself. > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > the pain body> > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > Anger is an emotion. All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not in peace internally I call the pain body. This pain body may not be real for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state. > > > >The pain body is I think a pretty neat concept for > > describing the overall inner conflict in a human being. > > > The pain body is an unnecessary concept that is used for a reason or > need. > It will exist for as long as it is needed or the want is still there > for it to exist. But as long as you do not feel complete peace in body and mind, then you are the victim of the pain body. > > > > > Speaking of a 'pain body' is a way to support a belief and / or > re- > > > inforce beliefs by confirming that one is suffering from symptoms > > > that ones expects to see. > > > > > > This 'pain body' which only exists as concept, gets blamed for > the > > > feelings a person is experiencing, which transfers the blame from > > the > > > real causes and makes introspection impossible. > > > > > > This pain body would dissolve upon true introspection. > > > > The pain body dissolves upon true introspection. It is being burned > > up by awareness. > > > The pain body doesn't dissolve, it is not there originally *to* > dissolve, upon introspection the *need for having the concept of > a 'pain body'* is let go of. > > It only exists for people who have created and adopted it as concept, > and hold onto it for a need or reason. There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience the pain body. When you are angry, this anger is felt not only in your brain, but also in your entire body as a contracted energy field. That is the pain body. > > > >This may take a very long time.> > > > How long did it take you to get a pain body? > > I would imagine you would be able to let go of the need for having > a 'pain body' in anything from 1s to a minute, and the reason I say > this is because 'your pain body' is mostly being used to support > beliefs you have about fears and emotions. The pain body is part of the human being in the current state of evolution. Just listen to a baby crying and you will hear the sound of the pain body. It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a separate limited individual and the pain body are the same thing. > > > > > > Introspection would not allow one to find a pain body, looking > for > > or > > > trying to discover a pain body is the opposite of introspection. > > > > > > So too is the blaming of a pain body or the speaking of a pain > body > > > as real and having an effect on someone or being responsible > > somehow > > > for their predicament. > > > > Feel the entire field in your body and mind that is resisting 'what > > is'. That is the pain body. > > > This is the 2nd and again different definition of what a 'pain body' > is. > You are providing evidence for what you think is what you call > a 'pain body', confirming it's existence as concept to yourself when > there is no such thing outside of your need for it. > > You start feeling muscle contractions, pain in the back, fear, anger > etc, and start to speak of a pain body being responsible, as long as > this happens you can never find the *real* causes of real problems. > > The pain body is the blame body, real fears and real problems are not > seen for what they truly are. Alan Watts also noticed this pain body: " What is it, then, that we feel as our ego? Well, I think I have discovered that it is a chronic and habitual sense of muscular strain, which we were taught to do in the process of performing normally things to order. When you are taking off in a jet plane, and the plane has gone rather further down the runway than you think it should have without getting up in the air, you may start pulling at your seat belt to get off the ground. Of course, this is perfectly useless. A similar thing happens when someone tells us to look carefully, to listen or pay attention. We start straining the muscles around our eyes, ears, jaws and hands. We try to use our muscles to make our nerves work, which is or course futile and in fact hinders the functioning of the nerves. When we try to control our emotions, we hold our breath, pull our stomach in, or tighten our muscless to 'pull ourselves together.' Of course tightening one's muscles is useless as a means of controlling one's emotions. This chronic tension, which in Sanskrit is called _sankoca_, meaning 'contraction,' is the root of what we call the 'feeling of the ego.' " > > > > > The pain body does not exist, it is a concept that has been > created. > > > It is only appearing because you want to see it and you need to > > have > > > it there. > > > > Osho said that the person who lived through intuition, would also > > feel his or her body as being orgasmic. Not orgasmic in a short or > > transient form, but orgasmic as resting in a complete field of > peace. > > All the things you sense in body and mind that is not this peace is > > the pain body.> > > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that you > want to have. > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you truly > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or reason, > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > the 'pain body' still exists. The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited individual go together. > > > We are so used to live in strain, pain and conflict > > that we don't know anything else. The entire separate 'you' is the > > pain body. > > > This is a 4th and again different definition of a 'pain body', used > for the same reasons as the other definitions. There is no reason for using the concept pain body other than as a composite term for the body/mind contraction experience by everybody except the rare liberated individual. > > > > > And neither do you need to know that a 'holon' is a term > originally > > > used by Arthur Koestler to mean; > > > > > > 'a part of the universe which is complete and consistent in > itself, > > > but is also an necessary integral part of a greater system which > > > encompasses it' - in order to discover why fears are affecting > you. > > > > Yes, that is a holon. The pain body is complete and consistent in > > itself as being in constant (illusionary) opposition to what is. > > > A pain body is not a holon, a holon is a necessary integral part, a > pain body is unnecessary. > Nobody has to have a 'pain body'; nobody does have a pain body, > except those that want or need it. The pain body is needed as a part of creating the illusion of separation, just as a cocoon is needed in order to create a butterfly. > > > > > A 'pain body' is not a part of the universe that is complete and > > > consistent in itself....and a necessary part of a greater system > > > which encompasses it' > > > > All 'things', all holons are necessary parts of existence. > > > A pain body is not a holon. That may be true. The pain body can be seen as an 'inverted' form of a holon. > > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon? > > > >but don't be too quick > > to deem it unnecessary for other people, including your future > ME. ;-)> > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, and > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do you? You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego. > > > > It is easy to stand on old paradigms and proclaim the old as the > > truth: anger is not a concept> > > > That anger is an emotion is not an old paradigm or a concept, > emotions are real things, just as real as thoughts, trees and your > computer. > > A pain body is not real, it just as real and as useful as a pink > elephant, except we don't need to have a pink elephant. You think anger is different from fear? Let me explain to you that anger comes from fear, anger is a branch on the tree of fear. If you were not afraid, would you really be angry? ;-) In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one root and that is the idea of separation. This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called the pain body. > > > it is the truth. Beware of standing on > > the platform missing the train of evolution. Just kidding, > evolution > > will continue as it must. > > > Creating pain bodies is not becoming more aware of ones mind, it is > the opposite. The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the realization of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' becoming aware of one's mind or anything else. That awareness shines alone, untouched. > > > > > > By trying to explain what a pain body is you are giving it more > > > reality, more life, more influence over you. > > > > Not necessarily. By recognizing the inner conflict as a totality, > as > > a holon, one can perform introspection in a total and completely > > effective way. > > > The definition of a holon used to give description to an unnecessary > concept makes your belief in that concept stronger. > > The concept is not only established to begin with but then one goes > on to describe in detail what the pain body is and how it is capable > of effecting one and that introspection is more effective with it. > > Introspection is not possible with a pain body, and with > introspection a pain body or the need for a pain body cannot exist. > > All description that brings aliveness to a pain body just makes the > pain body more real to you. It is very easy to discover the pain body for oneself. Just observe if you have total peace in body and mind always. If not, then that which is not peace is the pain body. > > > > > The initial conception of pain body is not needed in order to > > > discover true fears and the description is not needed to try and > > make > > > the conception more real. > > > > True fears are not many, they are one. We can deal with one fear at > a > > time in some form of theraphy, but then you will be confronted with > > an endless pit of fear. > > > True fears have different causes, not one cause, the cause of one > fear is not the cause of another different fear. > All fears do not have the same causes. > > This endless pit of fear is something that you are *already > anticipating*, having not started introspection or having positively > identified causes of fears. > > Instead of looking and anticipating the existence of a 'endless pit > of fear' why not look to why this anticipation occurrs? Fear is the the result of projecting a future 'me' from past experiences. It is really that simple. Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a spook in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion. > > > >To solve the problem of fear, one must by > > oneself be able to observe the pain body in oneself.> > > > It is not possible to observe the pain body in oneself with > introspection, try it. > Anything you are seeing is your own conception being confirmed by you. > > A pain body is not the cause of fear, it is what is blamed, or used > to support beliefs one has about fear. > As long as a 'pain body' is blamed for fear, the true causes will > never be found. What is needed is total observation (J. Krishnamurti talked a lot about this). The whole field of your being must be observed as one. > > > > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a reason > or > > > need why you are keeping it. > > > > The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate > > individual> > > > This is the 5th and again different definition you have used. > > The pain body is something you have created and given life to by > explaining how it manifests, and each time this definition has also > changed. > > How or why do you need a pain body? > > If you were to think about 'Why do I need this thing called a pain > body which is only a conception?' you would see that it is an > unnecessary concept that you are holding onto for a need to support > belief. Why do I need fear? This question is the same question that you are asking. Why is fear needed? The anwer is simple: fear acts as a mechanic regulating factor in a human being. Take away fear, and a person would stand with only his or her desires left. And desires are limited and created from a limited personal past limited to a limited personal me. So desires without fear would create havoc in a human being. Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, then you can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be dropped. I don't mean drop desires in the way that what you want is not good. No, what you want *is* good, but we have a narrow ego focus that makes desires take a far bigger role in our life than is in line with the totality of life. Desires are fragmented, limited, old and fixed ideas that creates a static opposition to the flowing present moment with its infinite potential. But most important is to realize that desires are alway only menues, and not the dinner. We tend to spend a big part of our lifes in menues. When we turn the focus away from future desires into the living present moment fears drop away. > > > >The idea of being separate is the root problem. > > > > There is only you, as a ME that is making it ( separation ) a problem > or excuse for a problem. As long as the ME is living in the 'future', the problem will remain. > > > In a > > deeper sense, this is not a problem, but a necessary part of > > evolution. > > Whatever you say then so mote it be to you. I don't believe in chance. Life is infinite complexity unfolding, infinite intelligence in action. This fear-based state of evolution we experience as human being is just a fetus for true humanity. Martinus said that we right now are half human and half animal, we are at a dark zone between the animal kingdom and the human kingdom. Take a look at: http://www.martinus.dk/layout_pages/index.php?lang=uk /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 21, 2004 The whole is not *mere* phenomenality. The whole is a thing-in- itself, or as far as we can talk about an absolute thing. A ME is not a thing-in-itself. A ME only exists as a separate relative entity. >>>>>>>>>> So you are saying: 1. A " ME " exists. 2. It is separate. How very strange. - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Friday, August 20, 2004 6:56 AM Re: Fearlessness 2 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > > To say that a ME is all phenomenon experienced is a good > > definition > > > I > > > > think. > > > > > > > > > A ME is not all phenomenon. > > > This is not what I have been meaning when I use the term ME. > > > > But you must admit that that's a pretty cool definition of a ME> > > > As cool as I think it might be I don't think that that is going to > help much > > > >I > > mean, look at yourself and the world, and what is that?> > > > This definition covers all phenomenon, a ME is not all phenomenon. > > If you have been using this definition of a ME and the whole, then > there is no purpose in using ME as a different definition. The whole is not *mere* phenomenality. The whole is a thing-in- itself, or as far as we can talk about an absolute thing. A ME is not a thing-in-itself. A ME only exists as a separate relative entity. > > > All > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when observer > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > originator of subject. Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is ultimately not two, but as a phenomenon, there is the observer and there is the observed, just as my body is not the same as a tree I observe. Ultimately my body and the tree are one, but as a phenomenal experience there is separation between the observer and the observed. Me and the tree are separate appearances. > > > The phenomenal world - which is > > the material world including body, feeling and thought - is what a > ME > > is. > > > No, a ME is not the material world. > You are not the material world. What I mean by material world includes such things as thoughts and feelings. > > > > > Anger is a real emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > > concept. > > > > The pain body is the overall sensation of separation felt in the > > human body/mind organism> > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > confirm it's existence to yourself. A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all conflicting emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is not a thing-in-itself. > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > the pain body> > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > Anger is an emotion. All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not in peace internally I call the pain body. This pain body may not be real for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state. > > > >The pain body is I think a pretty neat concept for > > describing the overall inner conflict in a human being. > > > The pain body is an unnecessary concept that is used for a reason or > need. > It will exist for as long as it is needed or the want is still there > for it to exist. But as long as you do not feel complete peace in body and mind, then you are the victim of the pain body. > > > > > Speaking of a 'pain body' is a way to support a belief and / or > re- > > > inforce beliefs by confirming that one is suffering from symptoms > > > that ones expects to see. > > > > > > This 'pain body' which only exists as concept, gets blamed for > the > > > feelings a person is experiencing, which transfers the blame from > > the > > > real causes and makes introspection impossible. > > > > > > This pain body would dissolve upon true introspection. > > > > The pain body dissolves upon true introspection. It is being burned > > up by awareness. > > > The pain body doesn't dissolve, it is not there originally *to* > dissolve, upon introspection the *need for having the concept of > a 'pain body'* is let go of. > > It only exists for people who have created and adopted it as concept, > and hold onto it for a need or reason. There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience the pain body. When you are angry, this anger is felt not only in your brain, but also in your entire body as a contracted energy field. That is the pain body. > > > >This may take a very long time.> > > > How long did it take you to get a pain body? > > I would imagine you would be able to let go of the need for having > a 'pain body' in anything from 1s to a minute, and the reason I say > this is because 'your pain body' is mostly being used to support > beliefs you have about fears and emotions. The pain body is part of the human being in the current state of evolution. Just listen to a baby crying and you will hear the sound of the pain body. It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a separate limited individual and the pain body are the same thing. > > > > > > Introspection would not allow one to find a pain body, looking > for > > or > > > trying to discover a pain body is the opposite of introspection. > > > > > > So too is the blaming of a pain body or the speaking of a pain > body > > > as real and having an effect on someone or being responsible > > somehow > > > for their predicament. > > > > Feel the entire field in your body and mind that is resisting 'what > > is'. That is the pain body. > > > This is the 2nd and again different definition of what a 'pain body' > is. > You are providing evidence for what you think is what you call > a 'pain body', confirming it's existence as concept to yourself when > there is no such thing outside of your need for it. > > You start feeling muscle contractions, pain in the back, fear, anger > etc, and start to speak of a pain body being responsible, as long as > this happens you can never find the *real* causes of real problems. > > The pain body is the blame body, real fears and real problems are not > seen for what they truly are. Alan Watts also noticed this pain body: " What is it, then, that we feel as our ego? Well, I think I have discovered that it is a chronic and habitual sense of muscular strain, which we were taught to do in the process of performing normally things to order. When you are taking off in a jet plane, and the plane has gone rather further down the runway than you think it should have without getting up in the air, you may start pulling at your seat belt to get off the ground. Of course, this is perfectly useless. A similar thing happens when someone tells us to look carefully, to listen or pay attention. We start straining the muscles around our eyes, ears, jaws and hands. We try to use our muscles to make our nerves work, which is or course futile and in fact hinders the functioning of the nerves. When we try to control our emotions, we hold our breath, pull our stomach in, or tighten our muscless to 'pull ourselves together.' Of course tightening one's muscles is useless as a means of controlling one's emotions. This chronic tension, which in Sanskrit is called _sankoca_, meaning 'contraction,' is the root of what we call the 'feeling of the ego.' " > > > > > The pain body does not exist, it is a concept that has been > created. > > > It is only appearing because you want to see it and you need to > > have > > > it there. > > > > Osho said that the person who lived through intuition, would also > > feel his or her body as being orgasmic. Not orgasmic in a short or > > transient form, but orgasmic as resting in a complete field of > peace. > > All the things you sense in body and mind that is not this peace is > > the pain body.> > > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that you > want to have. > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you truly > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or reason, > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > the 'pain body' still exists. The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited individual go together. > > > We are so used to live in strain, pain and conflict > > that we don't know anything else. The entire separate 'you' is the > > pain body. > > > This is a 4th and again different definition of a 'pain body', used > for the same reasons as the other definitions. There is no reason for using the concept pain body other than as a composite term for the body/mind contraction experience by everybody except the rare liberated individual. > > > > > And neither do you need to know that a 'holon' is a term > originally > > > used by Arthur Koestler to mean; > > > > > > 'a part of the universe which is complete and consistent in > itself, > > > but is also an necessary integral part of a greater system which > > > encompasses it' - in order to discover why fears are affecting > you. > > > > Yes, that is a holon. The pain body is complete and consistent in > > itself as being in constant (illusionary) opposition to what is. > > > A pain body is not a holon, a holon is a necessary integral part, a > pain body is unnecessary. > Nobody has to have a 'pain body'; nobody does have a pain body, > except those that want or need it. The pain body is needed as a part of creating the illusion of separation, just as a cocoon is needed in order to create a butterfly. > > > > > A 'pain body' is not a part of the universe that is complete and > > > consistent in itself....and a necessary part of a greater system > > > which encompasses it' > > > > All 'things', all holons are necessary parts of existence. > > > A pain body is not a holon. That may be true. The pain body can be seen as an 'inverted' form of a holon. > > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon? > > > >but don't be too quick > > to deem it unnecessary for other people, including your future > ME. ;-)> > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, and > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do you? You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego. > > > > It is easy to stand on old paradigms and proclaim the old as the > > truth: anger is not a concept> > > > That anger is an emotion is not an old paradigm or a concept, > emotions are real things, just as real as thoughts, trees and your > computer. > > A pain body is not real, it just as real and as useful as a pink > elephant, except we don't need to have a pink elephant. You think anger is different from fear? Let me explain to you that anger comes from fear, anger is a branch on the tree of fear. If you were not afraid, would you really be angry? ;-) In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one root and that is the idea of separation. This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called the pain body. > > > it is the truth. Beware of standing on > > the platform missing the train of evolution. Just kidding, > evolution > > will continue as it must. > > > Creating pain bodies is not becoming more aware of ones mind, it is > the opposite. The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the realization of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' becoming aware of one's mind or anything else. That awareness shines alone, untouched. > > > > > > By trying to explain what a pain body is you are giving it more > > > reality, more life, more influence over you. > > > > Not necessarily. By recognizing the inner conflict as a totality, > as > > a holon, one can perform introspection in a total and completely > > effective way. > > > The definition of a holon used to give description to an unnecessary > concept makes your belief in that concept stronger. > > The concept is not only established to begin with but then one goes > on to describe in detail what the pain body is and how it is capable > of effecting one and that introspection is more effective with it. > > Introspection is not possible with a pain body, and with > introspection a pain body or the need for a pain body cannot exist. > > All description that brings aliveness to a pain body just makes the > pain body more real to you. It is very easy to discover the pain body for oneself. Just observe if you have total peace in body and mind always. If not, then that which is not peace is the pain body. > > > > > The initial conception of pain body is not needed in order to > > > discover true fears and the description is not needed to try and > > make > > > the conception more real. > > > > True fears are not many, they are one. We can deal with one fear at > a > > time in some form of theraphy, but then you will be confronted with > > an endless pit of fear. > > > True fears have different causes, not one cause, the cause of one > fear is not the cause of another different fear. > All fears do not have the same causes. > > This endless pit of fear is something that you are *already > anticipating*, having not started introspection or having positively > identified causes of fears. > > Instead of looking and anticipating the existence of a 'endless pit > of fear' why not look to why this anticipation occurrs? Fear is the the result of projecting a future 'me' from past experiences. It is really that simple. Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a spook in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion. > > > >To solve the problem of fear, one must by > > oneself be able to observe the pain body in oneself.> > > > It is not possible to observe the pain body in oneself with > introspection, try it. > Anything you are seeing is your own conception being confirmed by you. > > A pain body is not the cause of fear, it is what is blamed, or used > to support beliefs one has about fear. > As long as a 'pain body' is blamed for fear, the true causes will > never be found. What is needed is total observation (J. Krishnamurti talked a lot about this). The whole field of your being must be observed as one. > > > > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a reason > or > > > need why you are keeping it. > > > > The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate > > individual> > > > This is the 5th and again different definition you have used. > > The pain body is something you have created and given life to by > explaining how it manifests, and each time this definition has also > changed. > > How or why do you need a pain body? > > If you were to think about 'Why do I need this thing called a pain > body which is only a conception?' you would see that it is an > unnecessary concept that you are holding onto for a need to support > belief. Why do I need fear? This question is the same question that you are asking. Why is fear needed? The anwer is simple: fear acts as a mechanic regulating factor in a human being. Take away fear, and a person would stand with only his or her desires left. And desires are limited and created from a limited personal past limited to a limited personal me. So desires without fear would create havoc in a human being. Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, then you can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be dropped. I don't mean drop desires in the way that what you want is not good. No, what you want *is* good, but we have a narrow ego focus that makes desires take a far bigger role in our life than is in line with the totality of life. Desires are fragmented, limited, old and fixed ideas that creates a static opposition to the flowing present moment with its infinite potential. But most important is to realize that desires are alway only menues, and not the dinner. We tend to spend a big part of our lifes in menues. When we turn the focus away from future desires into the living present moment fears drop away. > > > >The idea of being separate is the root problem. > > > > There is only you, as a ME that is making it ( separation ) a problem > or excuse for a problem. As long as the ME is living in the 'future', the problem will remain. > > > In a > > deeper sense, this is not a problem, but a necessary part of > > evolution. > > Whatever you say then so mote it be to you. I don't believe in chance. Life is infinite complexity unfolding, infinite intelligence in action. This fear-based state of evolution we experience as human being is just a fetus for true humanity. Martinus said that we right now are half human and half animal, we are at a dark zone between the animal kingdom and the human kingdom. Take a look at: http://www.martinus.dk/layout_pages/index.php?lang=uk /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > The whole is not *mere* phenomenality. The whole is a thing-in- > itself, or as far as we can talk about an absolute thing. A ME is not > a thing-in-itself. A ME only exists as a separate relative entity. > >>>>>>>>>> > So you are saying: > 1. A " ME " exists. > 2. It is separate. > > How very strange. > When we say that there are two apples in a basket these two apples are two separate relative things, but not even an apple is a thing-in- itself. Therefore in Buddhism there is the concept of emptiness. An apple is nothing in and by itself. A ME (depending on what we mean by a ME) is like an apple not a thing-in-itself. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > The whole is not *mere* phenomenality. The whole is a thing-in- > itself, or as far as we can talk about an absolute thing. A ME is not > a thing-in-itself. A ME only exists as a separate relative entity. > >>>>>>>>>> > So you are saying: > 1. A " ME " exists. > 2. It is separate. > > How very strange. > When we say that there are two apples in a basket these two apples are two separate relative things, but not even an apple is a thing-in- itself. Therefore in Buddhism there is the concept of emptiness. An apple is nothing in and by itself. A ME (depending on what we mean by a ME) is like an apple not a thing-in-itself. /AL >> Thank you for that clear explanation. *To me* (irony intended) there is no " ME " even in the relative sense of existence such as you attribute to an apple. It is like the " them " of the paranoid. There is no " them " that actually corresponds to his paranoid notion. The mere use of the term " me " does not mean there is something that corresponds to it. Apparently you consider that the " whole " is the one and only ding-an-sich (thing in itself). Interesting notion. Don't see how it really gets anywhere though. You seem to hold that the " whole " exists in a non-relative sense (i.e. is absolute). So if I say " OK, I'm willing to entertain that notion... " Where do you want to go with it? Incidentally, just googled for " ding an sich " (to make sure I spelled it right and found this: Dooyeweerd rejects the view that ascribes our sensations to " things in themselves " existing independently of the functions of our consciousness, so that our consciousness is one-sidedly dependent upon them, or that we passively receive sense impressions from them. Instead, he says that things do not exist independently of the functions of our consciousness (III, 45, 46). This does not merely mean that we have access to things. It means that things have no existence or reality apart from humanity as its supratemporal root (NC I, 100; II, 53), and that they have no qualities apart from humanity. at: http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Definitions/Dingansich.html I don't see any real problem with what is said there. And from the same page: " If what exists has a fixed [vaststaande] meaning, that is only because of the Divine giving of meaning. Nothing exists in itself. Nothing exists " apo-state " or separate from the Divine giving of meaning, everything exists in and through the Divine noesis. " I guess the notion of Divine here corresponds to your " whole " ... yes? And the " absoluteness " /realness of the " whole " makes some sense to me when I map it in terms of the statement above. It is just that terms such as " whole " /Divine/etc. seem odd to me... as if using words for such is " wrong " somehow... Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > The whole is not *mere* phenomenality. The whole is a thing-in- > > itself, or as far as we can talk about an absolute thing. A ME is > not > > a thing-in-itself. A ME only exists as a separate relative entity. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > So you are saying: > > 1. A " ME " exists. > > 2. It is separate. > > > > How very strange. > > > > When we say that there are two apples in a basket these two apples > are two separate relative things, but not even an apple is a thing- in- > itself. Therefore in Buddhism there is the concept of emptiness. An > apple is nothing in and by itself. A ME (depending on what we mean by > a ME) is like an apple not a thing-in-itself. > > /AL > >> > Thank you for that clear explanation. > > *To me* (irony intended) there is no " ME " even in the relative > sense of existence such as you attribute to an apple. > > It is like the " them " of the paranoid. There is no " them " that > actually corresponds to his paranoid notion. The mere use > of the term " me " does not mean there is something that > corresponds to it. > > Apparently you consider that the " whole " is the one and only > ding-an-sich (thing in itself). Interesting notion. Don't see how > it really gets anywhere though. You seem to hold that the > " whole " exists in a non-relative sense (i.e. is absolute). > So if I say " OK, I'm willing to entertain that notion... " Where > do you want to go with it? If we consider the whole to be the only thing-in-itself, then I must ultimately be exactly That: oneness. Then this means that everything that is the separate " I " is only a changeable form. And the form is me as I experience myself, but it is not the deeper me. Just as gold can take many forms, so too the whole is experienced as many forms. > > Incidentally, just googled for " ding an sich " (to make sure I > spelled it right and found this: > > Dooyeweerd rejects the view that ascribes our sensations to > " things in themselves " existing independently of the > functions of our consciousness, so that our consciousness > is one-sidedly dependent upon them, or that we passively > receive sense impressions from them. Instead, he says that > things do not exist independently of the functions of our > consciousness (III, 45, 46). This does not merely mean that > we have access to things. It means that things have no > existence or reality apart from humanity as its > supratemporal root (NC I, 100; II, 53), and that they have > no qualities apart from humanity. Yes I too believe that consciousness is the only thing-in-itself, and that what appear in consciousness, such as the material world is only that same consciousness experiencing form in its infinite diversity and complexity. > > at: http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Definitions/Dingansich.html > > I don't see any real problem with what is said there. > And from the same page: > " If what exists has a fixed [vaststaande] meaning, that is only because of the Divine giving of meaning. Nothing exists in itself. Nothing exists " apo-state " or separate from the Divine giving of meaning, everything exists in and through the Divine noesis. " > I guess the notion of Divine here corresponds to your " whole " ... yes? Yes, Dooyeweerd must be pointing to the 'no thing' in which everything happens. So, in reality, what we have that exists in an absolute sense is 'no thing'-in-itself, or perhaps better: that which exists-by-itself. > > And the " absoluteness " /realness of the " whole " makes some sense to > me when I map it in terms of the statement above. > > It is just that terms such as " whole " /Divine/etc. seem odd to me... > as if using words for such is " wrong " somehow... All words are relative 'things' _within_ the whole and can therefore never truly represent, or even fully describe, the whole. But I think words can be used as pointers. Everything that can be measured has only relative existence, and is not a thing-in-itself. In everday life we tend to feel that the opposite is true: that that which can be measured is a thing. But a thing that can be measured only has reality in relation to everything else. An apple, for example, has only a definite size in relation to the human body, and the human body has only a definite size in relation to Earth, and Earth has only a definite size in relation to the sun, and so on. An example about how the universe can be explained as oneness: http://www.holography.ruunivhoe.htm " University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram. " /AL > > > Bill > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 23, 2004 Anders, I went to the link you provided and found: Physicist Alain Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. That sounds like the well-know Bell's Theorem, which I don't see mentioned in the article. My intuition is that the universe is like a gigantic *blossom*, and has the nature of a phantasm, much as indicated further in the article: University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram. Note: Bohm talks about the universe in terms of unfolding/enfolding a lot, which metaphorically does connect with the notion of blossom. You could say it is a distinctly *organic* way of see it. Another way to consider it is as a hyper-dimensional marble cake. If you look at a slice of a marble cake the patterns are hard to explain, but if you see the patterns of the marble cake in 3D they make sense. Similarly with the universe. You can only understand *all* of it. And then you know longer have rational detachment, for all of it entails no separation. So the only understanding of the universe is *by* the universe. Bill - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Sunday, August 22, 2004 5:38 AM Re: Fearlessness 2 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > The whole is not *mere* phenomenality. The whole is a thing-in- > > itself, or as far as we can talk about an absolute thing. A ME is > not > > a thing-in-itself. A ME only exists as a separate relative entity. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > So you are saying: > > 1. A " ME " exists. > > 2. It is separate. > > > > How very strange. > > > > When we say that there are two apples in a basket these two apples > are two separate relative things, but not even an apple is a thing- in- > itself. Therefore in Buddhism there is the concept of emptiness. An > apple is nothing in and by itself. A ME (depending on what we mean by > a ME) is like an apple not a thing-in-itself. > > /AL > >> > Thank you for that clear explanation. > > *To me* (irony intended) there is no " ME " even in the relative > sense of existence such as you attribute to an apple. > > It is like the " them " of the paranoid. There is no " them " that > actually corresponds to his paranoid notion. The mere use > of the term " me " does not mean there is something that > corresponds to it. > > Apparently you consider that the " whole " is the one and only > ding-an-sich (thing in itself). Interesting notion. Don't see how > it really gets anywhere though. You seem to hold that the > " whole " exists in a non-relative sense (i.e. is absolute). > So if I say " OK, I'm willing to entertain that notion... " Where > do you want to go with it? If we consider the whole to be the only thing-in-itself, then I must ultimately be exactly That: oneness. Then this means that everything that is the separate " I " is only a changeable form. And the form is me as I experience myself, but it is not the deeper me. Just as gold can take many forms, so too the whole is experienced as many forms. > > Incidentally, just googled for " ding an sich " (to make sure I > spelled it right and found this: > > Dooyeweerd rejects the view that ascribes our sensations to > " things in themselves " existing independently of the > functions of our consciousness, so that our consciousness > is one-sidedly dependent upon them, or that we passively > receive sense impressions from them. Instead, he says that > things do not exist independently of the functions of our > consciousness (III, 45, 46). This does not merely mean that > we have access to things. It means that things have no > existence or reality apart from humanity as its > supratemporal root (NC I, 100; II, 53), and that they have > no qualities apart from humanity. Yes I too believe that consciousness is the only thing-in-itself, and that what appear in consciousness, such as the material world is only that same consciousness experiencing form in its infinite diversity and complexity. > > at: http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Definitions/Dingansich.html > > I don't see any real problem with what is said there. > And from the same page: > " If what exists has a fixed [vaststaande] meaning, that is only because of the Divine giving of meaning. Nothing exists in itself. Nothing exists " apo-state " or separate from the Divine giving of meaning, everything exists in and through the Divine noesis. " > I guess the notion of Divine here corresponds to your " whole " ... yes? Yes, Dooyeweerd must be pointing to the 'no thing' in which everything happens. So, in reality, what we have that exists in an absolute sense is 'no thing'-in-itself, or perhaps better: that which exists-by-itself. > > And the " absoluteness " /realness of the " whole " makes some sense to > me when I map it in terms of the statement above. > > It is just that terms such as " whole " /Divine/etc. seem odd to me... > as if using words for such is " wrong " somehow... All words are relative 'things' _within_ the whole and can therefore never truly represent, or even fully describe, the whole. But I think words can be used as pointers. Everything that can be measured has only relative existence, and is not a thing-in-itself. In everday life we tend to feel that the opposite is true: that that which can be measured is a thing. But a thing that can be measured only has reality in relation to everything else. An apple, for example, has only a definite size in relation to the human body, and the human body has only a definite size in relation to Earth, and Earth has only a definite size in relation to the sun, and so on. An example about how the universe can be explained as oneness: http://www.holography.ruunivhoe.htm " University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram. " /AL > > > Bill > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 23, 2004 Hi again, > >I > > mean, look at yourself and the world, and what is that?> > > > This definition covers all phenomenon, a ME is not all phenomenon. > > If you have been using this definition of a ME and the whole, then > there is no purpose in using ME as a different definition. >The whole is not *mere* phenomenality. The whole is a thing-in- itself, or as far as we can talk about an absolute thing. A ME is not a thing-in-itself. > 'Phenomenon' and 'noumenon' are not two, they are only two when split up by a thinking mind. Your definition of a ME includes all phenomenon and a ME is not all phenomenon. Neither is a ME the whole. >A ME only exists as a separate relative entity.> This is another different definition of a ME. You have used 3 different definitions for what a ME is. This is fitting definitions to support beliefs. It is difficult if not impossible to discuss a philosophy when terms are not agreed on first and even more difficult when definitions are constantly changing in order preserve beliefs 'intact'. > All > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when observer > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > originator of subject. >Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is ultimately not two,> Ultimately? >but as a phenomenon, there is the observer and there is the observed, just as my body is not the same as a tree I observe.> No, as phenomenon there is no observer. >Ultimately my body and the tree are one> What degree of change or difference has ultimate as it's highest level to make the above 'occurr'? >but as a phenomenal experience there is separation between the observer and the observed. No, there is no observer as phenomenon. >Me and the tree are separate appearances.> Yes, a ME and a tree are different and discrete. You have now changed your definition of a ME to support the current belief above. If you assert the above, you will have to change your 2nd definition of a ME from being all phenomenon. Under normal circumstances one would have a definition of something they were talking about and use this definition in explanation throughout. When you are stating beliefs, your beliefs change and then definitions are also changed to support these new beliefs. > The phenomenal world - which is > > the material world including body, feeling and thought - is what a > ME > > is. > > > No, a ME is not the material world. > You are not the material world. >What I mean by material world includes such things as thoughts and feelings.> Inclusive of thoughts and feeling you are not the material world. > > > Anger is a real emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > > concept. > > > > The pain body is the overall sensation of separation felt in the > > human body/mind organism> > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > confirm it's existence to yourself. >A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all conflicting emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is not a thing-in-itself.> This is the 6th different definition you have given to a 'pain body' and these definitions help make this conception more real to you. A pain body is a un-needed conception. Is a pain body 6 different ( created ) things ( even a conception is not 6 different things )? Is it more important that a pain body be 6 different things as conceptions or that it be thought of as real? > Anger is included in this sensation called > > the pain body> > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > Anger is an emotion. >All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not in peace internally I call the pain body> You have created a pain body in the above sentence. >This pain body may not be real for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state> The pain body is not real for anyone, there is no such thing. The only people who have a pain body are those that want to have a pain body. People that have a pain body, have a pain body because of a need. > >The pain body is I think a pretty neat concept for > > describing the overall inner conflict in a human being. > > > The pain body is an unnecessary concept that is used for a reason or > need. > It will exist for as long as it is needed or the want is still there > for it to exist. >But as long as you do not feel complete peace in body and mind, then you are the victim of the pain body.> This is what I was speaking about previously when I said that people create the pain body and then start blaming it for their predicament; They become a 'victim' of a pain body, a conception that they themselves have created, it takes on a life of its own and then is blamed as acting on them and affecting them. This is all self-induced, *unless* it is done knowingly to protect beliefs of someone who goes along with it fully aware but because of pride in beliefs will not surrender the concept after having declared and supported it's existence with statements and definitions. The pain body cannot affect you, it is only a conception you have molded out of symptoms you are looking for. A 'pain body' cannot do anything to you since it is self created, any power you are giving it comes solely from yourself. Blame is transferred from the real causes of emotions and fear and blamed on an illusionary creation to take this burden, it also takes the *responsibility* away from someone having to investigate their own emotions etc, because these can be blamed, are blamed, on something else, the 'pain body'. > > The pain body dissolves upon true introspection. It is being burned > > up by awareness. > > > The pain body doesn't dissolve, it is not there originally *to* > dissolve, upon introspection the *need for having the concept of > a 'pain body'* is let go of. > > It only exists for people who have created and adopted it as concept, > and hold onto it for a need or reason. >There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience the pain body.> The reason a pain body is kept is intellectual, it is being used to support beliefs you have about fear being responsible. It is probably also the pride of not wanting to let go of beliefs, including the belief that a pain body that you have outrightly stated as having a real existence and given many different definitions to support it's reality, would have to be accepted as being a needed concept only and not real. >When you are angry, this anger is felt not only in your brain> I have not felt anger in my brain. >but also in your entire body as a contracted energy field> Emotions are real things occurring on subtle levels but they do not exist over the entire body. If you are feeling this you are creating conceptions to explain the belief of a pain body to yourself or to support the beliefs you have presented previously. >That is the pain body> This is the 7th different definition you have given in support of your conception of a 'pain body'. > >This may take a very long time.> > > > How long did it take you to get a pain body? > > I would imagine you would be able to let go of the need for having > a 'pain body' in anything from 1s to a minute, and the reason I say > this is because 'your pain body' is mostly being used to support > beliefs you have about fears and emotions. >The pain body is part of the human being in the current state of evolution.> The pain body does not exist in humans, it is a concept made by humans. The only humans who have a pain body are those who need one. >Just listen to a baby crying and you will hear the sound of the pain body> The 'pain body' is not real and *not capable* of action or doing or making a sound. This is a conception that adds aliveness to your need to have a 'pain body' as real. >It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a separate limited individual and the pain body are the same thing. The sense of being a seperate individual is something you have conceptualized the 'pain body' as because of a need to have it exist. > This is the 2nd and again different definition of what a 'pain body' > is. > You are providing evidence for what you think is what you call > a 'pain body', confirming it's existence as concept to yourself when > there is no such thing outside of your need for it. > > You start feeling muscle contractions, pain in the back, fear, anger > etc, and start to speak of a pain body being responsible, as long as > this happens you can never find the *real* causes of real problems. > > The pain body is the blame body, real fears and real problems are not > seen for what they truly are. Alan Watts also noticed this pain body: " What is it, then, that we feel as our ego? Well, I think I have discovered that it is a chronic and habitual sense of muscular strain, which we were taught to do in the process of performing normally things to order. When you are taking off in a jet plane, and the plane has gone rather further down the runway than you think it should have without getting up in the air, you may start pulling at your seat belt to get off the ground. Of course, this is perfectly useless. A similar thing happens when someone tells us to look carefully, to listen or pay attention. We start straining the muscles around our eyes, ears, jaws and hands. We try to use our muscles to make our nerves work, which is or course futile and in fact hinders the functioning of the nerves. When we try to control our emotions, we hold our breath, pull our stomach in, or tighten our muscless to 'pull ourselves together.' Of course tightening one's muscles is useless as a means of controlling one's emotions. This chronic tension, which in Sanskrit is called _sankoca_, meaning 'contraction,' is the root of what we call the 'feeling of the ego.' " > This is a not a description of a 'pain body'. He appears to be telling us what *not* to do in order to discover the roots and causes of our emotions. The above is the opposite of introspection. > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that you > want to have. > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you truly > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or reason, > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > the 'pain body' still exists. >The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited individual go together.> In the previous paragraphs you defined a 'pain body' as the sense of being a separate individual above you are saying that these two concepts go together. > We are so used to live in strain, pain and conflict > > that we don't know anything else. The entire separate 'you' is the > > pain body. > > > This is a 4th and again different definition of a 'pain body', used > for the same reasons as the other definitions. >There is no reason for using the concept pain body other than as a composite term for the body/mind contraction experience by everybody except the rare liberated individual.> How many people do you know that have a pain body? Are people more able to discover their true feelings and emotions with or without the conception of a pain body? > A pain body is not a holon, a holon is a necessary integral part, a > pain body is unnecessary. > Nobody has to have a 'pain body'; nobody does have a pain body, > except those that want or need it. >The pain body is needed as a part of creating the illusion of separation, just as a cocoon is needed in order to create a butterfly.> A pain body does not create separation, and is not needed to create separation. The pain body exists as a conception, because of a *need*. You are now also giving it a *purpose* in saying that it is necessary in order to feel separate. > > > A 'pain body' is not a part of the universe that is complete and > > > consistent in itself....and a necessary part of a greater system > > > which encompasses it' > > > > All 'things', all holons are necessary parts of existence. > > > A pain body is not a holon. >That may be true. The pain body can be seen as an 'inverted' form of a holon.> An 'inverted form of a holon' is a fictional concept created in order to preserve the integrity of a belief. Is it more important to make your statements consistent ( which means not changing definitions to support beliefs ) in all expressions or to preserve a belief system no matter what the cost to consistency? In other words, is it more important that your statements are consistent, or that beliefs are not shown to be wrong but that consistency is lost with definitions changed to fit beliefs? If you are changing definitions to fit different belief positions, it is possible for you to believe in anything, this is in fact what is happening. > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? >Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon?> Not why does a caterpiller... Why do you have a 'pain body', why do you need to have the conception of a 'pain body'? > >but don't be too quick > > to deem it unnecessary for other people, including your future > ME. ;-)> > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, and > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do you? >You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego.> We are not 'pain bodies' A pain body is a conception that a person needs; For myself, I am not the pain body, I don't need one. You are also not the pain body, you need one. > > It is easy to stand on old paradigms and proclaim the old as the > > truth: anger is not a concept> > > > That anger is an emotion is not an old paradigm or a concept, > emotions are real things, just as real as thoughts, trees and your > computer. > > A pain body is not real, it just as real and as useful as a pink > elephant, except we don't need to have a pink elephant. >You think anger is different from fear?> No, I didn't say this, see above for what I said. But anger is different from fear. >Let me explain to you that anger comes from fear,> anger is a branch on the tree of fear. If you were not afraid, would you really be angry? ;-) It is possible to be afraid and not feel the slightest bit angry. >In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one root and that is the idea of separation. >This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called the pain body.> Instead of labelling the 'pain body' as another definition, what causes the emotions that allow you to create the conception of a pain body? No amount of investigating your conception of a 'pain body' can lead you to discover the causes of these emotions. > it is the truth. Beware of standing on > > the platform missing the train of evolution. Just kidding, > evolution > > will continue as it must. > > > Creating pain bodies is not becoming more aware of ones mind, it is > the opposite. >The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the realization of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' becoming aware of one's mind or anything else.> Are you saying that you are not included in the whole? You and 'your' mind are included, as is your understanding mind and the process of introspection. You are *conceiving* of what you imagine this thing called 'pure awareness' would be like. > The definition of a holon used to give description to an unnecessary > concept makes your belief in that concept stronger. > > The concept is not only established to begin with but then one goes > on to describe in detail what the pain body is and how it is capable > of effecting one and that introspection is more effective with it. > > Introspection is not possible with a pain body, and with > introspection a pain body or the need for a pain body cannot exist. > > All description that brings aliveness to a pain body just makes the > pain body more real to you. >It is very easy to discover the pain body for oneself> No one can discover a pain body unless they look for it as a conception and have the need or want to keep it as a conception. A very small amount of detached objective introspection would rid someone of the need to have the concept of a 'pain body'. It cannot exist alongside introspection. >Just observe if you have total peace in body and mind always. If not, then that which is not peace is the pain body.> You are keeping your conception of a pain body alive by changing its definition. You do not have one pain body, you now have 6 different ones, all equally justified as to their existence by 6 different definitions. All 6 would be dropped by realizing that they are not needed and that they are only being kept alive to support previous opinions that have been stated and beliefs that have been presented. > > > The initial conception of pain body is not needed in order to > > > discover true fears and the description is not needed to try and > > make > > > the conception more real. > > > > True fears are not many, they are one. We can deal with one fear at > a > > time in some form of theraphy, but then you will be confronted with > > an endless pit of fear. > > > True fears have different causes, not one cause, the cause of one > fear is not the cause of another different fear. > All fears do not have the same causes. > > This endless pit of fear is something that you are *already > anticipating*, having not started introspection or having positively > identified causes of fears. > > Instead of looking and anticipating the existence of a 'endless pit > of fear' why not look to why this anticipation occurrs? >Fear is the the result of projecting a future 'me' from past experiences. It is really that simple> There is no future ME, a ME thinks about the future. >Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? >When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a spook in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion.> You are still expressing fears, and these *anticipated* spooks and ghouls come from one place only; your own mind. > >To solve the problem of fear, one must by > > oneself be able to observe the pain body in oneself.> So long as you have a pain body that you are blaming, true fears can never be known. Creating pain bodies as a pancea or as a means to blame, or to support beliefs, is the opposite of detached objective introspection. > It is not possible to observe the pain body in oneself with > introspection, try it. > Anything you are seeing is your own conception being confirmed by you. > > A pain body is not the cause of fear, it is what is blamed, or used > to support beliefs one has about fear. > As long as a 'pain body' is blamed for fear, the true causes will > never be found. What is needed is total observation (J. Krishnamurti talked a lot about this). >The whole field of your being must be observed as one.> Sounds like very good advice, or just 'The whole field of your being must be observed' When you do this what happens to the 'pain body'? > > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a reason > or > > > need why you are keeping it. > > > > The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate > > individual> > > > This is the 5th and again different definition you have used. > > The pain body is something you have created and given life to by > explaining how it manifests, and each time this definition has also > changed. > > How or why do you need a pain body? > > If you were to think about 'Why do I need this thing called a pain > body which is only a conception?' you would see that it is an > unnecessary concept that you are holding onto for a need to support > belief. >Why do I need fear?> No, Why do you need a 'pain body'? >This question is the same question that you are asking> No, fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a conception you need for a reason. >Why is fear needed? The anwer is simple: fear acts as a mechanic regulating factor in a human being> >Take away fear, and a person would stand with only his or her desires left.> >And desires are limited and created from a limited personal past limited to a limited personal me.> >So desires without fear would create havoc in a human being.> Desires, the fulfilling of desires, and their capacity to be fulfilled is a *lot* more complicated than just being things created from the past. Desires are unique to each ME and occurr for many different reasons, and there are many different *types* of desires. >Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, then you can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be dropped. I don't mean drop desires in the way that what you want is not good.> Desires and fears do not always go together. See below. >No, what you want *is* good, but we have a narrow ego focus that makes desires take a far bigger role in our life than is in line with the totality of life. Desires are fragmented, limited, old and fixed ideas that creates a static opposition to the flowing present moment with its infinite potential. But most important is to realize that desires are alway only menues, and not the dinner. We tend to spend a big part of our lifes in menues. When we turn the focus away from future desires into the living present moment fears drop away.> Desires like fears happen for *different* reasons. The most important questions is this; *Why* do we experience different desires? Some desires are directly related to us seeking happiness or happiness in the short term, some are instinctual un-thinking desires, some are driven by self-image or lack of, some are greed / appearance and how we would like to think of ourselves, some are to satisfy physical needs, some mental, some cultural and so on. Desires *can* be good, they can be 'bad', what is your *intention* in desiring someone, something etc? Most of the time people are not aware of their desires or that they are desiRING. > >The idea of being separate is the root problem. > > > > There is only you, as a ME that is making it ( separation ) a problem > or excuse for a problem. >As long as the ME is living in the 'future', the problem will remain.> A ME living in the future causes the idea of being a separate being? > In a > > deeper sense, this is not a problem, but a necessary part of > > evolution. > > Whatever you say then so mote it be to you. >I don't believe in chance> I am not referring to chance, I mean by the above that if you believe you have a pain body, and if you keep the need for having a pain body, and keep providing different definitions to support its existence it will not disappear and introspection and true self awareness will be impossible. In other words you cannot know yourself as you truly are and why certain emotions such as fear appear. >Life is infinite complexity unfolding,infinite intelligence in action.> >This fear-based state of evolution we experience as human being is just a fetus for true humanity.> Your fear based evolution is yours, and yours for you to find support for. >Martinus said that we right now are half human and half animal, we are at a dark zone between the animal kingdom and the human kingdom.> Take a look at: http://www.martinus.dk/layout_pages/index.php?lang=uk> I am having a look at this, thanks. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Anders, > > I went to the link you provided and found: > > Physicist Alain Aspect and his team discovered > that under certain circumstances subatomic > particles such as electrons are able to > instantaneously communicate with each other > regardless of the distance separating them. It > doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 > billion miles apart. Somehow each particle > always seems to know what the other is doing. > The problem with this feat is that it violates > Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication > can travel faster than the speed of light. > > That sounds like the well-know Bell's Theorem, which > I don't see mentioned in the article. > > My intuition is that the universe is like a gigantic > *blossom*, and has the nature of a phantasm, > much as indicated further in the article: > > University of London physicist David Bohm, for > example, believes Aspect's findings imply that > objective reality does not exist, that despite its > apparent solidity the universe is at heart a > phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed > hologram. > > Note: Bohm talks about the universe in terms > of unfolding/enfolding a lot, which metaphorically > does connect with the notion of blossom. You > could say it is a distinctly *organic* way of see it. > > Another way to consider it is as a hyper-dimensional > marble cake. If you look at a slice of a marble cake > the patterns are hard to explain, but if you see the > patterns of the marble cake in 3D they make sense. > Similarly with the universe. You can only understand > *all* of it. And then you know longer have rational > detachment, for all of it entails no separation. So > the only understanding of the universe is *by* the > universe. > > Bill > Yes, I also see existence as a blossom, an infinite unfolding of complexity. The complexity of form is an endless expansion, an explosion of diversity. The Big Bang is a starting point for this unfolding, but this starting point may only be a relative branch or leaf of existence, like the blossoming of a single flower on the tree of life. Then what is it that is exploding, what is the 'substance' of it all? The closest to me is my consciousness, and in that consciousness my life unfolds. Can there be existence without consciousness? Maybe not. I believe consciousness is the 'substance' that experiences itself in an expanding self-relation creating infinite complexity and form. Scientists have discovered that the material universe expands, and this I see as consciousness becoming more and more diversified. What _is_ in an absolute sense is consciousness which cannot be destroyed, and cannot even be altered. But it can self-reflect in an infinite number of ways and it is this infinite blossom of self- reflection we experience as the material universe (inluding thoughts, feelings e t c). /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
