form and the awareness of form/AL (was: Fearlessness 2)

[Guest guest]

> There is form and the awareness of form.

> >>>>>>>>>

> Such is not my experience.

>

> Bill

 

AL:

> There is the now and something being aware of this now.

Bill:

I disagree. If you want to say that such is the case for

you, then fine. That is your " interpretation " .

 

You cannot possibly directly experience something being

aware of this now as distinct from the now. Therefore your

statement is a theoretical one.

 

AL:

> That which is

> aware of the now is a part of that same now.

Bill:

This statement seems to contradict the one just above.

" Awareness of the now " is a mere appearance (should it

appear) within the Now.

 

AL:

Show me the 'not now'.

Bill:

Why would I want to?

 

Your original statement was:

" There is form and the awareness of form. "

What bearing do your comments above have on that?

 

The Now/What Is is without form.

There is nothing apart from Now/What Is.

All form is merely " apparent " , is not-real.

 

The *idea* that awareness of form is distinct from form

is form, and as such is merely *apparent*. There are

no true ideas. All ideas are phantasms.

 

Apparently you have a subjective experience of

*being aware of now*. That subjective experience

seems utterly real and undeniable. It seems to be

absolute fact. But I suggest to you that it is actually

a creation, something that can melt back into the

undifferentiated Now. Its only reality is the tenacity

with which it is held onto. When that tenacity dissolves

it dissolves.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> > There is form and the awareness of form.

> > >>>>>>>>>

> > Such is not my experience.

> >

> > Bill

>

> AL:

> > There is the now and something being aware of this now.

> Bill:

> I disagree. If you want to say that such is the case for

> you, then fine. That is your " interpretation " .

>

> You cannot possibly directly experience something being

> aware of this now as distinct from the now. Therefore your

> statement is a theoretical one.

 

I should have added that awareness is not distinct from the now.

Hmm... It looks like I have already added this:

 

>

> AL:

> > That which is

> > aware of the now is a part of that same now.

> Bill:

> This statement seems to contradict the one just above.

> " Awareness of the now " is a mere appearance (should it

> appear) within the Now.

>

> AL:

> Show me the 'not now'.

> Bill:

> Why would I want to?

>

> Your original statement was:

> " There is form and the awareness of form. "

> What bearing do your comments above have on that?

 

Form and awareness of form is an obvious observation of what is in

the now. This is the only thing there is in the now and the now is

the only thing we know is without speculation. Awareness is not

a 'thing'. Form is the total collection of 'things', including

thoughts and material object. There is no need to prove anything

here. There may be different views about what awareness is, but what

I mean is the simple fact of being aware. I said that " There is form

and the awareness of form. " and you said " Such is not my experience " ,

but what I mean by form is thoughts, feelings, memories, bodily

sensations and every material object being experienced, and that _is_

your experience, and that which is aware of that experience is

awareness.

 

>

> The Now/What Is is without form.

> There is nothing apart from Now/What Is.

> All form is merely " apparent " , is not-real.

>

> The *idea* that awareness of form is distinct from form

> is form, and as such is merely *apparent*. There are

> no true ideas. All ideas are phantasms.

>

> Apparently you have a subjective experience of

> *being aware of now*. That subjective experience

> seems utterly real and undeniable. It seems to be

> absolute fact. But I suggest to you that it is actually

> a creation, something that can melt back into the

> undifferentiated Now. Its only reality is the tenacity

> with which it is held onto. When that tenacity dissolves

> it dissolves.

>

> Bill

 

Can you deny that you are aware? There is nothing magical about

awareness; it is simply the fact of being aware. And that is pretty

miraculous! The simple fact of being aware is quite something, but

awareness is obvious, there is no need to prove the obvious.

 

I think I have expressed what I mean by form and what I mean by

awareness in an unclear way. Awareness is the simple fact of being

aware, and form is what awareness is aware of. When you have a dream,

that part which is aware of the dream is awareness and the dream

itself is form.

 

/AL

[Guest guest]

Form is the total collection of 'things', including

thoughts and material object.

>>>>>>>>>>

What Is is not a collection of " things " , material or immaterial.

 

What Is is without distinction.

 

The term " form " clearly (it seems to me) refers to distinction.

All form is merely appearance and unreal.

 

So your statement above does not make sense to me.

 

As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as the

" collection of 'things' " except as a concept.

 

[Do you mean that: Form is Appearance, i.e. the totality

of phenomenal appearance?]

 

Form is distinction; distinction is form.

 

You seem to assume that awareness is inherently awareness

*of form*. If so, I must disagree with you. While we may speak

of " he was aware *of* such-and-such... " etc., awareness in

a pure philosophical sense such as the context of this

discussion is not *of* anything, at least as I use the term.

 

Really, I consider that awareness is a superfluous notion.

 

Free from the clutches of the mind, what distinction is there

anywhere? Even the notion of " awareness " is a distinction.

There is nothing inherently real about " awareness " . It is not

a bedrock reality. This is the point: there is nothing that can

be referred to that constitutes a bedrock reality. It is futile

to attempt to find such a bedrock reality. And you cannot

*choose* to accept that. But once that is completely clear,

*then*, then... ahh yes!

 

 

Bill

 

-

anders_lindman

Nisargadatta

Saturday, September 04, 2004 12:57 PM

Re: form and the awareness of form/AL (was: Fearlessness

2)

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> > There is form and the awareness of form.

> > >>>>>>>>>

> > Such is not my experience.

> >

> > Bill

>

> AL:

> > There is the now and something being aware of this now.

> Bill:

> I disagree. If you want to say that such is the case for

> you, then fine. That is your " interpretation " .

>

> You cannot possibly directly experience something being

> aware of this now as distinct from the now. Therefore your

> statement is a theoretical one.

 

I should have added that awareness is not distinct from the now.

Hmm... It looks like I have already added this:

 

>

> AL:

> > That which is

> > aware of the now is a part of that same now.

> Bill:

> This statement seems to contradict the one just above.

> " Awareness of the now " is a mere appearance (should it

> appear) within the Now.

>

> AL:

> Show me the 'not now'.

> Bill:

> Why would I want to?

>

> Your original statement was:

> " There is form and the awareness of form. "

> What bearing do your comments above have on that?

 

Form and awareness of form is an obvious observation of what is in

the now. This is the only thing there is in the now and the now is

the only thing we know is without speculation. Awareness is not

a 'thing'. Form is the total collection of 'things', including

thoughts and material object. There is no need to prove anything

here. There may be different views about what awareness is, but what

I mean is the simple fact of being aware. I said that " There is form

and the awareness of form. " and you said " Such is not my experience " ,

but what I mean by form is thoughts, feelings, memories, bodily

sensations and every material object being experienced, and that _is_

your experience, and that which is aware of that experience is

awareness.

 

>

> The Now/What Is is without form.

> There is nothing apart from Now/What Is.

> All form is merely " apparent " , is not-real.

>

> The *idea* that awareness of form is distinct from form

> is form, and as such is merely *apparent*. There are

> no true ideas. All ideas are phantasms.

>

> Apparently you have a subjective experience of

> *being aware of now*. That subjective experience

> seems utterly real and undeniable. It seems to be

> absolute fact. But I suggest to you that it is actually

> a creation, something that can melt back into the

> undifferentiated Now. Its only reality is the tenacity

> with which it is held onto. When that tenacity dissolves

> it dissolves.

>

> Bill

 

Can you deny that you are aware? There is nothing magical about

awareness; it is simply the fact of being aware. And that is pretty

miraculous! The simple fact of being aware is quite something, but

awareness is obvious, there is no need to prove the obvious.

 

I think I have expressed what I mean by form and what I mean by

awareness in an unclear way. Awareness is the simple fact of being

aware, and form is what awareness is aware of. When you have a dream,

that part which is aware of the dream is awareness and the dream

itself is form.

 

/AL

 

 

 

**

 

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

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

 

/mygroups?edit=1

 

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

and click on Save Changes.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> Form is the total collection of 'things', including

> thoughts and material object.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> What Is is not a collection of " things " , material or immaterial.

>

> What Is is without distinction.

>

> The term " form " clearly (it seems to me) refers to distinction.

> All form is merely appearance and unreal.

>

> So your statement above does not make sense to me.

>

> As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as the

> " collection of 'things' " except as a concept.

>

> [Do you mean that: Form is Appearance, i.e. the totality

> of phenomenal appearance?]

>

> Form is distinction; distinction is form.

>

> You seem to assume that awareness is inherently awareness

> *of form*. If so, I must disagree with you. While we may speak

> of " he was aware *of* such-and-such... " etc., awareness in

> a pure philosophical sense such as the context of this

> discussion is not *of* anything, at least as I use the term.

>

> Really, I consider that awareness is a superfluous notion.

>

> Free from the clutches of the mind, what distinction is there

> anywhere? Even the notion of " awareness " is a distinction.

> There is nothing inherently real about " awareness " . It is not

> a bedrock reality. This is the point: there is nothing that can

> be referred to that constitutes a bedrock reality. It is futile

> to attempt to find such a bedrock reality. And you cannot

> *choose* to accept that. But once that is completely clear,

> *then*, then... ahh yes!

>

>

> Bill

>

 

It is perhaps difficult to define what we mean by awareness, but I

see awareness as the simple fact of being aware. If someone asks

me: " Are you aware? " , then I say: " Yes, I am aware " . Then the next

question may be: " Who are aware? " , and then I say " Regardless of who

or what is being aware, the simple fact of being aware, of awareness

as is, cannot be denied. "

 

So with this definition there _is_ awareness, because if there was no

awareness there would be nobody being aware of anything.

 

Bedrock reality is awareness together with that awareness is aware

of. What is _is_. And what is includes awareness of what is.

 

Can you deny that you are aware?

 

/AL

[Guest guest]

Can you deny that you are aware?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have no need to deny, nor to take a position.

It is like asking someone, " When did you stop beating your wife? "

which is to say that presuppositions are built into the question.

The problem is with the question itself.

 

I will say there is Appearance. But what I mean by that is

easily misunderstood. For when I say Appearance I don't

mean " particular appearances " , nor do I mean the sum of

all particular appearances. Appearance = What Is, indivisible,

untouchable. Appearance/What Is cannot be " considered " by

anyone. That last statement may seem to be a baffling one.

Some will say that I patently am considering Appearance/

What Is by the mere fact of writing that statement. But such

is not so. The subject of a sentence does not equate to being

the subject of experience. Appearance/What Is can never be

the subject of experience.

 

If someone asks me, " Are you aware? " my reply is, " What do

you mean? "

 

Consider this puzzle: I am writing this sentence. Yet there is

no " I " doing anything here.

 

People typically see my statements as constituting a " logical

position " . My statements do not constitute a logical position.

There is no " position " here whatsoever. These statements

unfold as they will. What do they unfold *from*? That question

embodies the perennial error.

 

Bill

 

 

 

-

anders_lindman

Nisargadatta

Monday, September 06, 2004 6:53 AM

Re: form and the awareness of form/AL (was: Fearlessness

2)

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> Form is the total collection of 'things', including

> thoughts and material object.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> What Is is not a collection of " things " , material or immaterial.

>

> What Is is without distinction.

>

> The term " form " clearly (it seems to me) refers to distinction.

> All form is merely appearance and unreal.

>

> So your statement above does not make sense to me.

>

> As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as the

> " collection of 'things' " except as a concept.

>

> [Do you mean that: Form is Appearance, i.e. the totality

> of phenomenal appearance?]

>

> Form is distinction; distinction is form.

>

> You seem to assume that awareness is inherently awareness

> *of form*. If so, I must disagree with you. While we may speak

> of " he was aware *of* such-and-such... " etc., awareness in

> a pure philosophical sense such as the context of this

> discussion is not *of* anything, at least as I use the term.

>

> Really, I consider that awareness is a superfluous notion.

>

> Free from the clutches of the mind, what distinction is there

> anywhere? Even the notion of " awareness " is a distinction.

> There is nothing inherently real about " awareness " . It is not

> a bedrock reality. This is the point: there is nothing that can

> be referred to that constitutes a bedrock reality. It is futile

> to attempt to find such a bedrock reality. And you cannot

> *choose* to accept that. But once that is completely clear,

> *then*, then... ahh yes!

>

>

> Bill

>

 

It is perhaps difficult to define what we mean by awareness, but I

see awareness as the simple fact of being aware. If someone asks

me: " Are you aware? " , then I say: " Yes, I am aware " . Then the next

question may be: " Who are aware? " , and then I say " Regardless of who

or what is being aware, the simple fact of being aware, of awareness

as is, cannot be denied. "

 

So with this definition there _is_ awareness, because if there was no

awareness there would be nobody being aware of anything.

 

Bedrock reality is awareness together with that awareness is aware

of. What is _is_. And what is includes awareness of what is.

 

Can you deny that you are aware?

 

/AL

 

 

 

**

 

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

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

 

/mygroups?edit=1

 

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

and click on Save Changes.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

>

> Can you deny that you are aware?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> I have no need to deny, nor to take a position.

> It is like asking someone, " When did you stop beating your wife? "

 

If you are not aware, then you don't exist as a sentient being. It's

that simple really. Are you aware of this text?

 

> which is to say that presuppositions are built into the question.

> The problem is with the question itself.

>

> I will say there is Appearance. But what I mean by that is

> easily misunderstood. For when I say Appearance I don't

> mean " particular appearances " , nor do I mean the sum of

> all particular appearances. Appearance = What Is, indivisible,

> untouchable. Appearance/What Is cannot be " considered " by

> anyone. That last statement may seem to be a baffling one.

> Some will say that I patently am considering Appearance/

> What Is by the mere fact of writing that statement. But such

> is not so. The subject of a sentence does not equate to being

> the subject of experience. Appearance/What Is can never be

> the subject of experience.

>

> If someone asks me, " Are you aware? " my reply is, " What do

> you mean? "

 

Then 'I' will ask you: " Is there awareness of this text? " My own

answer is " Yes, there is awareness of this text, if there were no

awareness of this text, then there would be no _experience_ of the

text " .

 

Is there _experience_? You cannot deny that. You whole life is

experience. There cannot be any experience without the awareness of

experience. Can you deny that there is awareness of experience?

 

>

> Consider this puzzle: I am writing this sentence. Yet there is

> no " I " doing anything here.

>

> People typically see my statements as constituting a " logical

> position " . My statements do not constitute a logical position.

> There is no " position " here whatsoever. These statements

> unfold as they will. What do they unfold *from*? That question

> embodies the perennial error.

>

> Bill

>

 

Is there *something*, call it something, 'no thing', or whatever - is

there something being aware of this text?

 

The funny part, or scary, is of course, that I may be the only aware

being there is and that I am posting to 'myself'. Think about it: to

be the only aware being there is and that the entire world is just a

dream. If I ask a person in a dream: " Are you aware of me? Can you

see me? " and the person in the dream says: " Yes, of course I can see

you " :-)

 

/AL

[Guest guest]

Anders,

 

You wrote:

 

> Can you deny that you are aware?

 

and then:

 

Then 'I' will ask you: " Is there awareness of this text? " My own

answer is " Yes, there is awareness of this text, if there were no

awareness of this text, then there would be no _experience_ of the

text " .

 

This gets into the grammar of words. I consider that you

are using a grammar that is incorrect re the term " aware " .

I have delayed responding to your post because this gets

into some arcane points about language and grammar.

 

 

" For philosophical problems arise when language 'goes on holiday'. "

-Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

If I walk into the office where I work and ask one of the

workers there, " Are you aware *of* _________ " (something or other)

she will typically answer " yes " or " no " . But if I walk in and

ask, " Are you aware? " , the person will look at me with a blank

face, wondering whatever do I mean. What does this mean?

 

Consider the term " conscious " . It makes sense to speak of a

person as " conscious " without the preposition " of " attached,

as in, " The doctor said the patient is conscious. " It is odd,

however, to ask a person, " Are you conscious? " . The use of

" conscious " without the preposition " of " typically must be

in the third person. (Hopefully this is clear...)

 

You are seeming to link the grammars of " aware of " and " aware "

without the preposition " of " . For you respond to my response to

your question, " Are you aware? " with the question, " Are you aware

of this text? " Therefore you seem to assume the inference that to

be " aware of " (some X) is to " be aware " . Note, however, this is not

in normal usage. Such a usage is not in " ordinary language " , which

is why the question, " Are you aware? " would no make sense to the

average person.

 

What you are doing (it seems to me) is *extending the grammar*

of " aware " to behave like the word " conscious " , and with the

further extension to apply it to the first person. As I

have indicated, such an extension is not in ordinary use.

Therefore the burden is upon you to provide and explanation

of the meaning of the terms per your special use.

 

The problem with your question: " Can you deny that you are aware? "

is that it is not a meaningful question for me. The statement,

" I am aware, " is not meaningful to me. For you the statement

" I am aware " evidently *is* meaningful. I am asking you to

consider what I am saying about your use being non-standard.

 

I have gone to some effort in attempting to be clear to you,

Anders, about the points above. In previous exchanges from

this thread I have felt that you have breezed over points I

made very carefully, and that you were not being attentive

and reading what I had written with care. Please be careful

to digest what I am saying above carefully.

 

Best regards,

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> Anders,

>

> You wrote:

>

> > Can you deny that you are aware?

>

> and then:

>

> Then 'I' will ask you: " Is there awareness of this text? " My

own

> answer is " Yes, there is awareness of this text, if there were

no

> awareness of this text, then there would be no _experience_ of

the

> text " .

>

> This gets into the grammar of words. I consider that you

> are using a grammar that is incorrect re the term " aware " .

> I have delayed responding to your post because this gets

> into some arcane points about language and grammar.

>

>

> " For philosophical problems arise when language 'goes on

holiday'. "

> -Ludwig Wittgenstein

>

> If I walk into the office where I work and ask one of the

> workers there, " Are you aware *of* _________ " (something or other)

> she will typically answer " yes " or " no " . But if I walk in and

> ask, " Are you aware? " , the person will look at me with a blank

> face, wondering whatever do I mean. What does this mean?

>

> Consider the term " conscious " . It makes sense to speak of a

> person as " conscious " without the preposition " of " attached,

> as in, " The doctor said the patient is conscious. " It is odd,

> however, to ask a person, " Are you conscious? " . The use of

> " conscious " without the preposition " of " typically must be

> in the third person. (Hopefully this is clear...)

>

> You are seeming to link the grammars of " aware of " and " aware "

> without the preposition " of " . For you respond to my response to

> your question, " Are you aware? " with the question, " Are you aware

> of this text? " Therefore you seem to assume the inference that to

> be " aware of " (some X) is to " be aware " . Note, however, this is not

> in normal usage. Such a usage is not in " ordinary language " , which

> is why the question, " Are you aware? " would no make sense to the

> average person.

>

> What you are doing (it seems to me) is *extending the grammar*

> of " aware " to behave like the word " conscious " , and with the

> further extension to apply it to the first person. As I

> have indicated, such an extension is not in ordinary use.

> Therefore the burden is upon you to provide and explanation

> of the meaning of the terms per your special use.

>

> The problem with your question: " Can you deny that you are aware? "

> is that it is not a meaningful question for me. The statement,

> " I am aware, " is not meaningful to me. For you the statement

> " I am aware " evidently *is* meaningful. I am asking you to

> consider what I am saying about your use being non-standard.

>

> I have gone to some effort in attempting to be clear to you,

> Anders, about the points above. In previous exchanges from

> this thread I have felt that you have breezed over points I

> made very carefully, and that you were not being attentive

> and reading what I had written with care. Please be careful

> to digest what I am saying above carefully.

>

> Best regards,

> Bill

>

 

Can you deny that you exist?

 

/AL

[Guest guest]

Can you deny that you exist?

>>>

Note the form of your question: ... can you deny?

The question is loaded because it presumes that

the person is affirming the contrary. It presumes

that either " I deny that I exist " or " I affirm that I exist " .

 

Your question makes an unfounded assumption.

 

But I will ask myself that question...

" Do I exist? "

What do I get in response?

 

" There is no particular place where that question has bearing. "

That is the response I got.

 

One favorite author of mine said, " It's the locus, not the focus. "

In mathematics the " locus of points " is the entire domain of

points. Locus stands in contrast to focus, which applies to

particular, " central " points.

 

My intuitive sense of what is driving you in a way very different

from me is a " sense of gravity " towards some presumed " center " . For

me there is no center. I expect you will be tempted to latch onto

my phrase " for me " there and declare that such does indeed

constitute a kind of center, but I remind you that my use of terms

such as " for me " is only expedient speech. There is no " reality "

corresponding to my use of " me " in that sentence. Indeed, it makes

perfect sense to me to say:

 

For me there is no " me " . : )

 

or...

 

I have no sense of " I " .

 

 

Contemplate that. A lot is said in that simple sentence.

Or a lot is *stripped away*, I perhaps should say.

 

Anyway, for me there is no center. There is not even

a plane of reference. I could say, yes, for me there is even

no *locus*. There is *no* reference domain.

 

Hence, the response:

" There is no particular place where that question has bearing. "

 

I don't blame anyone for whom the above is nonsensical.

I don't know what to make of it myself.

As I have said in the past, it is as if certain brain functions

had been surgically rendered impossible to perform.

For example, if the part of the brain that provides childhood

memories were to be surgically removed, and then the

person is asked, " What was your childhood like? " , the person

would presumably find a strange vacuity where the answer

should be. As if a certain door on the second story of a

building were to open into wide open space instead of

the familiar room it used to open into.

 

But it doesn't seem like an impairment at all (are you

grinning

 

I was contemplating along these lines while driving to

work the other day. It was a beautiful sunny day, and

I was driving on a two-lane highway through farmland.

My mind was absolutely still and empty. There was just

the movement of the white stripes on the road into the

hood of the car, the blue sky, the entire scene.

And this moment, in front of the computer, is just the

same. There is nothing interfering with the direct

immediacy of experience. Even composing these words

is not a distraction. It is as if they are somehow

streaming into my fingers of their own, and my

*awareness* (there's that word!) is unclutted by any

effort to compose these words.

 

And there is something else. A vitality, a bouyancy,

an " incredible lightness of being " .

 

But I don't make anything of any of that... for as

Pete wrote in a recent post:

 

For the last two days there is been a sense of a large presence

everywhere. When looking outward is there, when looking inward

is also there. Despite, that it brings a sense of great silence

and emptiness, the mind wishes to brand it as something solid

which bears a name, such as Self, That, or whatever.

 

- That guy Pete Whatever-His-Name-Is

 

I don't at this moment feel the sense of " presence " he describes...

but certainly have at times. But, as I think Pete's point was, any

of such " distilled saliencies " are themselves transitory, not- real.

Like butterflies of the field, they are beautiful, and then are

gone.

 

And what, we might ask, ever remains?

That is the distillation.

That is the purity.

But let go of that.

It is just your mind, grasping again...

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> Can you deny that you exist?

> >>>

> Note the form of your question: ... can you deny?

> The question is loaded because it presumes that

> the person is affirming the contrary. It presumes

> that either " I deny that I exist " or " I affirm that I exist " .

>

> Your question makes an unfounded assumption.

>

> But I will ask myself that question...

> " Do I exist? "

> What do I get in response?

>

> " There is no particular place where that question has bearing. "

> That is the response I got.

>

> One favorite author of mine said, " It's the locus, not the focus. "

> In mathematics the " locus of points " is the entire domain of

> points. Locus stands in contrast to focus, which applies to

> particular, " central " points.

>

> My intuitive sense of what is driving you in a way very different

> from me is a " sense of gravity " towards some presumed " center " . For

> me there is no center. I expect you will be tempted to latch onto

> my phrase " for me " there and declare that such does indeed

> constitute a kind of center, but I remind you that my use of terms

> such as " for me " is only expedient speech. There is no " reality "

> corresponding to my use of " me " in that sentence. Indeed, it makes

> perfect sense to me to say:

>

> For me there is no " me " . : )

>

> or...

>

> I have no sense of " I " .

>

>

> Contemplate that. A lot is said in that simple sentence.

> Or a lot is *stripped away*, I perhaps should say.

>

> Anyway, for me there is no center. There is not even

> a plane of reference. I could say, yes, for me there is even

> no *locus*. There is *no* reference domain.

>

> Hence, the response:

> " There is no particular place where that question has bearing. "

>

> I don't blame anyone for whom the above is nonsensical.

> I don't know what to make of it myself.

> As I have said in the past, it is as if certain brain functions

> had been surgically rendered impossible to perform.

> For example, if the part of the brain that provides childhood

> memories were to be surgically removed, and then the

> person is asked, " What was your childhood like? " , the person

> would presumably find a strange vacuity where the answer

> should be. As if a certain door on the second story of a

> building were to open into wide open space instead of

> the familiar room it used to open into.

>

> But it doesn't seem like an impairment at all (are you

> grinning

>

> I was contemplating along these lines while driving to

> work the other day. It was a beautiful sunny day, and

> I was driving on a two-lane highway through farmland.

> My mind was absolutely still and empty. There was just

> the movement of the white stripes on the road into the

> hood of the car, the blue sky, the entire scene.

> And this moment, in front of the computer, is just the

> same. There is nothing interfering with the direct

> immediacy of experience. Even composing these words

> is not a distraction. It is as if they are somehow

> streaming into my fingers of their own, and my

> *awareness* (there's that word!) is unclutted by any

> effort to compose these words.

>

> And there is something else. A vitality, a bouyancy,

> an " incredible lightness of being " .

>

> But I don't make anything of any of that... for as

> Pete wrote in a recent post:

>

> For the last two days there is been a sense of a large presence

> everywhere. When looking outward is there, when looking inward

> is also there. Despite, that it brings a sense of great silence

> and emptiness, the mind wishes to brand it as something solid

> which bears a name, such as Self, That, or whatever.

>

> - That guy Pete Whatever-His-Name-Is

>

> I don't at this moment feel the sense of " presence " he describes...

> but certainly have at times. But, as I think Pete's point was, any

> of such " distilled saliencies " are themselves transitory, not- real.

> Like butterflies of the field, they are beautiful, and then are

> gone.

>

> And what, we might ask, ever remains?

> That is the distillation.

> That is the purity.

> But let go of that.

> It is just your mind, grasping again...

>

> Bill

>

 

What you say sounds similar to what Tony Parsons says: that he

doesn't own a 'me'. He talks about a state of clarity. I guess that

when the sense of 'me' as a center dissolves, then there is clarity.

I have seen some glimpses of what can be call clarity, and that is

indeed also a form of increased " presence " .

 

/AL

[Guest guest]

> I was contemplating along these lines while driving to

> work the other day. It was a beautiful sunny day, and

> I was driving on a two-lane highway through farmland.

> My mind was absolutely still and empty. There was just

> the movement of the white stripes on the road into the

> hood of the car, the blue sky, the entire scene.

> And this moment, in front of the computer, is just the

> same. There is nothing interfering with the direct

> immediacy of experience. Even composing these words

> is not a distraction. It is as if they are somehow

> streaming into my fingers of their own, and my

> *awareness* (there's that word!) is unclutted by any

> effort to compose these words.

>

> And there is something else. A vitality, a bouyancy,

> an " incredible lightness of being " .

>

> But I don't make anything of any of that... for as

> Pete wrote in a recent post:

>

> For the last two days there is been a sense of a large presence

> everywhere. When looking outward is there, when looking inward

> is also there. Despite, that it brings a sense of great silence

> and emptiness, the mind wishes to brand it as something solid

> which bears a name, such as Self, That, or whatever.

>

> - That guy Pete Whatever-His-Name-Is

>

> I don't at this moment feel the sense of " presence " he describes...

> but certainly have at times. But, as I think Pete's point was, any

> of such " distilled saliencies " are themselves transitory, not- real.

> Like butterflies of the field, they are beautiful, and then are

> gone.

>

> And what, we might ask, ever remains?

> That is the distillation.

> That is the purity.

> But let go of that.

> It is just your mind, grasping again...

>

> Bill

>

 

What you say sounds similar to what Tony Parsons says: that he

doesn't own a 'me'. He talks about a state of clarity. I guess that

when the sense of 'me' as a center dissolves, then there is clarity.

I have seen some glimpses of what can be call clarity, and that is

indeed also a form of increased " presence " .

 

/AL

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am not familiar with Tony Parsons...

Instead of " state of clarity " I would prefer to say

" a simple transparency " ... but it amounts to the same

more or less.

 

So yes, clarity, transparency, presence, those are

more or less synonyms... but it is important to not

get caught up in *looking for* a " state of clarity " etc.

All it means is that when a sense of 'me' has dissolved

what is left is a kind of translucent absence/presence.

Absent because there is nothing there. Present because

the absence is somehow *full*... brimming even...

 

Curious indeed, a brimming absence...

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> >

 

> >

>

> What you say sounds similar to what Tony Parsons says: that he

> doesn't own a 'me'. He talks about a state of clarity. I guess that

> when the sense of 'me' as a center dissolves, then there is

clarity.

> I have seen some glimpses of what can be call clarity, and that is

> indeed also a form of increased " presence " .

>

> /AL

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> I am not familiar with Tony Parsons...

> Instead of " state of clarity " I would prefer to say

> " a simple transparency " ... but it amounts to the same

> more or less.

>

> So yes, clarity, transparency, presence, those are

> more or less synonyms... but it is important to not

> get caught up in *looking for* a " state of clarity " etc.

> All it means is that when a sense of 'me' has dissolved

> what is left is a kind of translucent absence/presence.

> Absent because there is nothing there. Present because

> the absence is somehow *full*... brimming even...

>

> Curious indeed, a brimming absence...

>

> Bill

 

So this sense of 'me', in essence, is a sense of separation

created by the activity of the discursive mind. This

activity could be as simple as a subconscious intent,

a preference for this, over that. The discursive mind

resembles a beggar rummaging on a garbage heap, always

assessing the value of every item and every state

which comes into view.

When there is a shift into a contemplative state of mind

which views everything as equal, there is no such thing

as outside or inside, and no agenda clouding the view.

 

Although, this state, call it clarity, or whatever can not

last uninterrupted, the mind once it has realized that it

only needs to stop rummaging to return to it, will make it,

after a while, its home base.

 

Pete

 

 

>

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> > I was contemplating along these lines while driving to

> > work the other day. It was a beautiful sunny day, and

> > I was driving on a two-lane highway through farmland.

> > My mind was absolutely still and empty. There was just

> > the movement of the white stripes on the road into the

> > hood of the car, the blue sky, the entire scene.

> > And this moment, in front of the computer, is just the

> > same. There is nothing interfering with the direct

> > immediacy of experience. Even composing these words

> > is not a distraction. It is as if they are somehow

> > streaming into my fingers of their own, and my

> > *awareness* (there's that word!) is unclutted by any

> > effort to compose these words.

> >

> > And there is something else. A vitality, a bouyancy,

> > an " incredible lightness of being " .

> >

> > But I don't make anything of any of that... for as

> > Pete wrote in a recent post:

> >

> > For the last two days there is been a sense of a large

presence

> > everywhere. When looking outward is there, when looking inward

> > is also there. Despite, that it brings a sense of great

silence

> > and emptiness, the mind wishes to brand it as something solid

> > which bears a name, such as Self, That, or whatever.

> >

> > - That guy Pete Whatever-His-Name-Is

> >

> > I don't at this moment feel the sense of " presence " he

describes...

> > but certainly have at times. But, as I think Pete's point was, any

> > of such " distilled saliencies " are themselves transitory, not-

real.

> > Like butterflies of the field, they are beautiful, and then are

> > gone.

> >

> > And what, we might ask, ever remains?

> > That is the distillation.

> > That is the purity.

> > But let go of that.

> > It is just your mind, grasping again...

> >

> > Bill

> >

>

> What you say sounds similar to what Tony Parsons says: that he

> doesn't own a 'me'. He talks about a state of clarity. I guess that

> when the sense of 'me' as a center dissolves, then there is

clarity.

> I have seen some glimpses of what can be call clarity, and that is

> indeed also a form of increased " presence " .

>

> /AL

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> I am not familiar with Tony Parsons...

 

If you are interested, you can check out:

 

http://www.theopensecret.com

 

/AL

 

> Instead of " state of clarity " I would prefer to say

> " a simple transparency " ... but it amounts to the same

> more or less.

>

> So yes, clarity, transparency, presence, those are

> more or less synonyms... but it is important to not

> get caught up in *looking for* a " state of clarity " etc.

> All it means is that when a sense of 'me' has dissolved

> what is left is a kind of translucent absence/presence.

> Absent because there is nothing there. Present because

> the absence is somehow *full*... brimming even...

>

> Curious indeed, a brimming absence...

>

> Bill

>