Guest guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 Bill, I find interesting that you write you no longer have a sense of self. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that now you find all concepts, and memories regarding a Bill to be a false imputation? Or is it that now you lack those feelings of interiority associated with a locus of activity? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 Bill, I find interesting that you write you no longer have a sense of self. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that now you find all concepts, and memories regarding a Bill to be a false imputation? Or is it that now you lack those feelings of interiority associated with a locus of activity? Pete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The latter, Pete. The former option you mention would be -- if I read you right -- a conceptual " adjustment " of some kind. But I can't even say " I lack those feelings of interiority... " even that is an overstatement, because the subjective sense of " I lack " is not there. I cannot seem to say: I sense, I experience, I feel, etc. Nevertheless I can say I just read your message, and that I am writing a response to your message. I can also say: I remember responding to your message. There is a very subtle sense of absence, but it is like noting the blind spot of your eye... a most fleeting sense or impression. There are " private " sensations, meaning sensations that only I can give a report of, such as say a tingling in the fingers. But such sensations are " free floating " ... and are not really distinct from the sound of water running in the swimming pool next door. All sensations belong to the same non-container (meaning there is no such " thing " as such a container) and are themselves *non-distinct*. Everything moves and transforms freely and is integrated as an " organic " whole. When I (sometimes) say that nothing ever happens, I mean that there is nothing distinct, nothing singular, nothing special, that it is all a blur, all a phantasmic, dreamlike apparition. I used to say there is a sense of wholeness, a sense of deep peace, etc. But now even that is gone. I can say there is Appearance, but that is the most I can report. And even a reporting as such is a blur, a dreamlike trace of smoke. Nothing stands out, nothing is apart. The writing of this message is such a dreamlike trace of smoke. While I could remember about it if asked, the writing of this message leaves no impression. The trace of smoke has faded, is gone. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Bill, I find interesting that you write > you no longer have a sense of self. I'm > not sure what you mean by this. Do you > mean that now you find all concepts, and > memories regarding a Bill to be a false > imputation? Or is it that now you lack > those feelings of interiority associated > with a locus of activity? > > Pete > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The latter, Pete. > > The former option you mention would be > -- if I read you right -- a conceptual > " adjustment " of some kind. > > But I can't even say " I lack those feelings > of interiority... " > even that is an overstatement, because > the subjective sense of " I lack " is not > there. > > I cannot seem to say: I sense, I experience, > I feel, etc. Nevertheless I can say I > just read your message, and that I am > writing a response to your message. > I can also say: I remember responding to > your message. > > There is a very subtle sense of absence, > but it is like noting the blind spot > of your eye... a most fleeting sense or > impression. > > There are " private " sensations, meaning > sensations that only I can give a report > of, such as say a tingling in the fingers. > But such sensations are " free floating " ... > and are not really distinct from the sound > of water running in the swimming pool next > door. All sensations belong to the same > non-container (meaning there is no such > " thing " as such a container) and are themselves > *non-distinct*. Everything moves and > transforms freely and is integrated as > an " organic " whole. > > When I (sometimes) say that nothing ever > happens, I mean that there is nothing > distinct, nothing singular, nothing special, > that it is all a blur, all a phantasmic, > dreamlike apparition. > > I used to say there is a sense of wholeness, > a sense of deep peace, etc. But now even > that is gone. I can say there is Appearance, > but that is the most I can report. And even > a reporting as such is a blur, a dreamlike > trace of smoke. Nothing stands out, nothing is > apart. The writing of this message is such a > dreamlike trace of smoke. While I could remember > about it if asked, the writing of this message > leaves no impression. The trace of smoke has > faded, is gone. > > Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > But I can't even say " I lack those feelings > of interiority... " > even that is an overstatement, because > the subjective sense of " I lack " is not > there. > > I cannot seem to say: I sense, I experience, > I feel, etc. Nevertheless I can say I > just read your message, and that I am > writing a response to your message. > I can also say: I remember responding to > your message. > > There is a very subtle sense of absence, > but it is like noting the blind spot > of your eye... a most fleeting sense or > impression. > > There are " private " sensations, meaning > sensations that only I can give a report > of, such as say a tingling in the fingers. > But such sensations are " free floating " ... > and are not really distinct from the sound > of water running in the swimming pool next > door. All sensations belong to the same > non-container (meaning there is no such > " thing " as such a container) and are themselves > *non-distinct*. Everything moves and > transforms freely and is integrated as > an " organic " whole. > > When I (sometimes) say that nothing ever > happens, I mean that there is nothing > distinct, nothing singular, nothing special, > that it is all a blur, all a phantasmic, > dreamlike apparition. > > I used to say there is a sense of wholeness, > a sense of deep peace, etc. But now even > that is gone. I can say there is Appearance, > but that is the most I can report. And even > a reporting as such is a blur, a dreamlike > trace of smoke. Nothing stands out, nothing is > apart. The writing of this message is such a > dreamlike trace of smoke. While I could remember > about it if asked, the writing of this message > leaves no impression. The trace of smoke has > faded, is gone. > > Bill Okay, but there is the one who just now evaluated those changes and impressions. It could be said, it's just the brain, memories evaluating itself, or whatever. The sensations, and experiences seem evanescent because the 'Owner' who valued the experiences is gone. The work site has been `socialized' and no one cares ( most of the time) If an emergency would occur a temporary 'manager' would spring into action, and fade when no longer needed. All these views are impermanent and come and go in a great void. Realization itself is impermanent and will perish with the brain. Both delusion and enlightenment are illusory points of view of a brain. To get acquitted with Nothingness, to accept it as 'true self,' to accept consciousness transiency, to accept that there is no permanency, anywhere is it. Not even Nothingness is permanent because life spring from it every second. So it's only a great spectacle, like the northern lights: Flashes of colored evanescent light against pervasive darkness. So our view of the show is no more permanent or superior than Al's. it's just that the spot from where we view it is more comfortable. Pete > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 bill. if " the writing of this message leaves no impression " , why is it posted here on this forum for all to read? >>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it Dan? That is something for you to contemplate... What did I mean by " impression " Dan? Do you *know* what I meant? Or do you assume that the first thing that pops into your head is surely what I meant? Perhaps when what I say doesn't make sense to you it is a sign that you have not understood. Bill - danananda2004 Nisargadatta Wednesday, September 08, 2004 7:17 AM Re: Bill's No Self. Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Bill, I find interesting that you write > you no longer have a sense of self. I'm > not sure what you mean by this. Do you > mean that now you find all concepts, and > memories regarding a Bill to be a false > imputation? Or is it that now you lack > those feelings of interiority associated > with a locus of activity? > > Pete > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The latter, Pete. > > The former option you mention would be > -- if I read you right -- a conceptual > " adjustment " of some kind. > > But I can't even say " I lack those feelings > of interiority... " > even that is an overstatement, because > the subjective sense of " I lack " is not > there. > > I cannot seem to say: I sense, I experience, > I feel, etc. Nevertheless I can say I > just read your message, and that I am > writing a response to your message. > I can also say: I remember responding to > your message. > > There is a very subtle sense of absence, > but it is like noting the blind spot > of your eye... a most fleeting sense or > impression. > > There are " private " sensations, meaning > sensations that only I can give a report > of, such as say a tingling in the fingers. > But such sensations are " free floating " ... > and are not really distinct from the sound > of water running in the swimming pool next > door. All sensations belong to the same > non-container (meaning there is no such > " thing " as such a container) and are themselves > *non-distinct*. Everything moves and > transforms freely and is integrated as > an " organic " whole. > > When I (sometimes) say that nothing ever > happens, I mean that there is nothing > distinct, nothing singular, nothing special, > that it is all a blur, all a phantasmic, > dreamlike apparition. > > I used to say there is a sense of wholeness, > a sense of deep peace, etc. But now even > that is gone. I can say there is Appearance, > but that is the most I can report. And even > a reporting as such is a blur, a dreamlike > trace of smoke. Nothing stands out, nothing is > apart. The writing of this message is such a > dreamlike trace of smoke. While I could remember > about it if asked, the writing of this message > leaves no impression. The trace of smoke has > faded, is gone. > > Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 for somebody whose writing " leaves no impression " , you sure are defensive about it... Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > bill. if " the writing of this message leaves no impression " , why is > it posted here on this forum for all to read? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Why is it Dan? > That is something for you to contemplate... > What did I mean by " impression " Dan? > Do you *know* what I meant? > Or do you assume that the first thing that > pops into your head is surely what I meant? > > Perhaps when what I say doesn't make sense > to you it is a sign that you have not understood. > > > Bill > > - > danananda2004 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, September 08, 2004 7:17 AM > Re: Bill's No Self. > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > Bill, I find interesting that you write > > you no longer have a sense of self. I'm > > not sure what you mean by this. Do you > > mean that now you find all concepts, and > > memories regarding a Bill to be a false > > imputation? Or is it that now you lack > > those feelings of interiority associated > > with a locus of activity? > > > > Pete > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > The latter, Pete. > > > > The former option you mention would be > > -- if I read you right -- a conceptual > > " adjustment " of some kind. > > > > But I can't even say " I lack those feelings > > of interiority... " > > even that is an overstatement, because > > the subjective sense of " I lack " is not > > there. > > > > I cannot seem to say: I sense, I experience, > > I feel, etc. Nevertheless I can say I > > just read your message, and that I am > > writing a response to your message. > > I can also say: I remember responding to > > your message. > > > > There is a very subtle sense of absence, > > but it is like noting the blind spot > > of your eye... a most fleeting sense or > > impression. > > > > There are " private " sensations, meaning > > sensations that only I can give a report > > of, such as say a tingling in the fingers. > > But such sensations are " free floating " ... > > and are not really distinct from the sound > > of water running in the swimming pool next > > door. All sensations belong to the same > > non-container (meaning there is no such > > " thing " as such a container) and are themselves > > *non-distinct*. Everything moves and > > transforms freely and is integrated as > > an " organic " whole. > > > > When I (sometimes) say that nothing ever > > happens, I mean that there is nothing > > distinct, nothing singular, nothing special, > > that it is all a blur, all a phantasmic, > > dreamlike apparition. > > > > I used to say there is a sense of wholeness, > > a sense of deep peace, etc. But now even > > that is gone. I can say there is Appearance, > > but that is the most I can report. And even > > a reporting as such is a blur, a dreamlike > > trace of smoke. Nothing stands out, nothing is > > apart. The writing of this message is such a > > dreamlike trace of smoke. While I could remember > > about it if asked, the writing of this message > > leaves no impression. The trace of smoke has > > faded, is gone. > > > > Bill > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Pete: > Okay, but there is the one who just now evaluated those > changes and impressions. It could be said, it's just the > brain, memories evaluating itself, or whatever. The > sensations, and experiences seem evanescent because the > 'Owner' who valued the experiences is gone. Why must it be a " one " ...why must there *ever* have been an 'Owner'? That seems to me an example of " reification " , the creation of an entity to explain something. The ancients couldn't explain lightning, so they created the notion of a god (such as Thor) to explain that for them. But such explanations don't explain anything at all. Why must we suppose there is an *entity* behind behaviour, even a transient one? I like the way Nisargadatta put it... that the only causal explanation for anything is Everything. But I can see in terms of your perspective if I add the qualification that: The sensations, and experiences seem evanescent because the 'Owner' who valued the experiences is gone and was *only apparent* in the first place. And the " valuing* was only apparent also. An 'Owner' that is only apparent never really gives a hoot. > The work site > has been `socialized' and no one cares ( most of the time) > If an emergency would occur a temporary 'manager' would > spring into action, and fade when no longer needed. That being said -- and I am taking issue really more with terminology than essential meaning -- I relate to all the following of your remarks... > All these views are impermanent and come and go in a great > void. Realization itself is impermanent and will perish > with the brain. Both delusion and enlightenment are illusory > points of view of a brain. To get acquitted with > Nothingness, to accept it as 'true self,' to accept > consciousness transiency, to accept that there is no > permanency, anywhere is it. Not even Nothingness is > permanent because life spring from it every second. So it's > only a great spectacle, like the northern lights: Flashes of > colored evanescent light against pervasive darkness. So our > view of the show is no more permanent or superior than Al's. > it's just that the spot from where we view it is more > comfortable. Scintillating flashes of quintessentia, bursting into radiance only to ebb into darkness. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Pete: > > Okay, but there is the one who just now evaluated those > > changes and impressions. It could be said, it's just the > > brain, memories evaluating itself, or whatever. The > > sensations, and experiences seem evanescent because the > > 'Owner' who valued the experiences is gone. > Why must it be a " one " ...why must there *ever* have been > an 'Owner'? > That seems to me an example of " reification " , the creation > of an entity to explain something. The ancients couldn't > explain lightning, so they created the notion of a god > (such as Thor) to explain that for them. But such explanations > don't explain anything at all. Why must we suppose there > is an *entity* behind behaviour, even a transient one? > > I like the way Nisargadatta put it... that the only causal > explanation for anything is Everything. > > But I can see in terms of your perspective if I add the > qualification that: > > The sensations, and experiences seem evanescent because > the 'Owner' who valued the experiences is gone and was > *only apparent* in the first place. > > And the " valuing* was only apparent also. An 'Owner' that > is only apparent never really gives a hoot. P: Yes, only apparent in both cases. It's 'belief' in the entity which confers pseudo-reality while the belief is there. There is always a tendency in the mind to personify its functions. 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. The mind has that inclination, but thoughts seem like a pile of ashes blown by the wind, they can' stick to the presence. They fall silent, and the mind comtemplates it with the intuition that it includes everything. The mind, the world, and the presence are somehow one. A trinity in one. But then again, no interpretation is needed, all interpretations are false. It could be called Buddha Nature, and it won't change a thing, or called, Christ, or This, and not a thing would be added, or taken away. All names and thoughts about it seem useless. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 > > But I can see in terms of your perspective if I add the > > qualification that: > > > > The sensations, and experiences seem evanescent because > > the 'Owner' who valued the experiences is gone and was > > *only apparent* in the first place. > > > > And the " valuing* was only apparent also. An 'Owner' that > > is only apparent never really gives a hoot. > > P: Yes, only apparent in both cases. It's 'belief' in the > entity which confers pseudo-reality while the belief is > there. There is always a tendency in the mind to personify > its functions. 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. The mind has that > inclination, but thoughts seem like a pile of ashes blown by > the wind, they can' stick to the presence. They fall silent, > and the mind comtemplates it with the intuition that it > includes everything. The mind, the world, and the presence > are somehow one. A trinity in one. > > But then again, no interpretation is needed, all > interpretations are false. It could be called Buddha Nature, > and it won't change a thing, or called, Christ, or This, and > not a thing would be added, or taken away. All names and > thoughts about it seem useless. > > Pete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I enjoyed your remarks thoroughly. Especially lucious was: " ...thoughts seem like a pile of ashes blown by the wind, they can't stick to the presence. " re: > no interpretation is needed, all interpretations are false When the falseness of all interpretations is recognized, then a sense of futility sets in, which becomes an utter acceptance of what is. And upon utter acceptance there is a dawning *realization* that no interpretation is needed. Note that per this view, realization is not the key (that it seems so often made out to be), but the consequence of a complete giving up. Knowing that no interpretation is needed is outside of words. It is not that one " knows " that as a concept. It is rather that one simply does not reach for any concepts or interpretations. It is like someone who is not hungry not reaching for food. The reflex to muddle the simplicity of what is with striving, with thought, with seeking to understand, has been extinguished (somehow). And that is all. So " knowing that no interpretation is needed " is not something that the mind " gets " . It is simply the absence of the muddling habit patterns of thought, effort, striving. I think you are making a very important point which is very elusive when you say: > There is always a tendency in the mind to personify > its functions. 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. The mind has that > inclination, but thoughts seem like a pile of ashes blown by > the wind, they can' stick to the presence. When one has seen the emptiness of the " daily froth " of phenomena, one can still come to consider that one sees a " purer absolute " reality that pervades it all. One might call that " consciousness " , another " awareness " , another Self or That (as you indicate). It is as if the mind has been beaten back, but still clings tenaciously to *something*, as if there *must be* some kind of fundamental Reality. But eventually, even that drops away. The mind simply cannot grasp the absence of anything to be referred to whatsoever. So how does a no-mind communicate to a mind? Or does it even make sense to communicate to a mind? I guess we just keep saying, " Not this, not that " , which is the essence of your message, as I see it. Thank you for your marvelous post! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 >Bill: So how does a no-mind communicate to a mind? > Or does it even make sense to communicate to a mind? > > I guess we just keep saying, " Not this, not that " , which > is the essence of your message, as I see it. > P:Bill, this is a very important question that you asked, maybe 'Da Question' for some here. No-Mind doesn't communicate with mind, and this drives mind into a frenzy. Confronted with this 'utter simplicity', this 'monolithic incomprehensibility', the discursive mind goes into a frenzy of speculation. It reminds me, of the Zen story of the hungry dog who finds a boiling cauldron of fat. It can not lick it up, and it can not leave it alone. For the dog, this is a problem with no acceptable solution. The only answer is to leave the cauldron alone until it cools, but that's precisely what the dog, and the mind can't do. This phase is not in itself unproductive. It's the phase which has given birth to the great religions, and the religious movements and reformations. Of course, only religious geniuses get to be that productive. Average Joes, like us, only post a lot of philosophical juggling, like this one. When in sheer exhaustion, the discursive mind stops its spinning and becomes quiet and attentive, a deeper mind, as it were, begins to intuitively move with No-Mind. This is like dancing in the dark. A dance in which the mind doesn't see its partner, but unerringly follows. It's a mysterious infallibility of action and feelings. An infallibility which doesn't mean that, the results are always what the mind wanted or expected, but rather that what had to happen gets done without fear, regret, or self-congratulations. To live, act, and feel without understanding, or assurances takes a lot of getting used to, the discursive mind hates to abandon control to an unseen presence. This mind here, is still adjusting to it. It is still a clumsy dancer. Still trying to look at its feet, even when dancing in the dark. I know this sounds awfully dualistic, and I'm aware that no one can speak of this without falsification, but let's face it, 'Unicity' includes an apparent duality which will never vanish while in the flesh. This apparent duality must be dealt with, as if real. Trucks, will always be trucks, and jumping out of the way of a speeding truck, is the only thing to do. Not even a jhani can philosophize the darn things to a stop. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.