Sense of 'me' (was: form and the awareness of form/)

September 12, 2004

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

created by the activity of the discursive mind.

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

In a nutshell.

If you start of with a sense of 'me', it doesn't matter

where you go... because it is a journey from ignorance,

via ignorance, to ignorance. The " discursive mind " gets

very involved in the machinations of going hither and

thither, indeed it thrives on it.

So what if someone *does* have a sense of 'me'?

What do you say to such a person?

Do you say, " Throw away that sense of 'me'. It is

worthless, even worse, it is the root of confusion

and ignorance " ? That doesn't seem like a particularly

helpful comment somehow...

Bill

PS: Thought to insert a definition for " discursive " here,

as it is not a very familiar term:

dis·cur·sive

adj.

1.. Covering a wide field of subjects; rambling.

2.. Proceeding to a conclusion through reason rather than intuition.

It is the second def. that applies in this discussion.

..................

> 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

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

September 12, 2004

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

wrote:

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

> created by the activity of the discursive mind.

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

> In a nutshell.

>

> If you start of with a sense of 'me', it doesn't matter

> where you go... because it is a journey from ignorance,

> via ignorance, to ignorance. The " discursive mind " gets

> very involved in the machinations of going hither and

> thither, indeed it thrives on it.

>

> So what if someone *does* have a sense of 'me'?

> What do you say to such a person?

> Do you say, " Throw away that sense of 'me'. It is

> worthless, even worse, it is the root of confusion

> and ignorance " ? That doesn't seem like a particularly

> helpful comment somehow...

>

> Bill

>

> PS: Thought to insert a definition for " discursive " here,

> as it is not a very familiar term:

>

> dis·cur·sive

> adj.

> 1.. Covering a wide field of subjects; rambling.

> 2.. Proceeding to a conclusion through reason rather than

intuition.

> It is the second def. that applies in this discussion.

>

> .................

Hi Bill,

As I wrote to Tooms the sense of separation can't not be dropped.

But if the mind gets a clear insight about what this sense does, and

the

activities which create the feeling, there is a chance such

activities will come to an end by themselves. No different than

feeling a pain in the butt, and discovering you have been sitting

on a sharp edge. Well, of course, the only thing to do is change

seats.

>

> 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

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

>

September 12, 2004

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

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

> wrote:

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

> > created by the activity of the discursive mind.

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

> > In a nutshell.

> >

> > If you start of with a sense of 'me', it doesn't matter

> > where you go... because it is a journey from ignorance,

> > via ignorance, to ignorance. The " discursive mind " gets

> > very involved in the machinations of going hither and

> > thither, indeed it thrives on it.

> >

> > So what if someone *does* have a sense of 'me'?

> > What do you say to such a person?

> > Do you say, " Throw away that sense of 'me'. It is

> > worthless, even worse, it is the root of confusion

> > and ignorance " ? That doesn't seem like a particularly

> > helpful comment somehow...

> >

> > Bill

> >

> > PS: Thought to insert a definition for " discursive " here,

> > as it is not a very familiar term:

> >

> > dis·cur·sive

> > adj.

> > 1.. Covering a wide field of subjects; rambling.

> > 2.. Proceeding to a conclusion through reason rather than

> intuition.

> > It is the second def. that applies in this discussion.

> >

> > .................

>

> Hi Bill,

> As I wrote to Tooms the sense of separation can't not be dropped.

> But if the mind gets a clear insight about what this sense does, and

> the

> activities which create the feeling, there is a chance such

> activities will come to an end by themselves. No different than

> feeling a pain in the butt, and discovering you have been sitting

> on a sharp edge. Well, of course, the only thing to do is change

> seats.

Pete,

There is no other seat...or point of reference...for the identified entity =

to move to.

Its existential totality IS its seat.

Even it another seat were available...the entity lacks the volitional eleme=

nts necessary to

accomplish the move..............

toombaru

>

> >

> > 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

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

> >

September 13, 2004

> Pete,

>

> There is no other seat...or point of reference...for the identified

entity =

> to move to.

>

> Its existential totality IS its seat.

>

> Even it another seat were available...the entity lacks the

volitional eleme=

> nts necessary to

> accomplish the move..............

>

> toombaru

It's not the entity who sees. It's not the entity who moves, Toom.

We are in agreement the entity is a fiction. The seat was a meta4,

moving was a meta4. No need to take meta4s literaly. When the brain

sees clearly, the thrashing about of thoughts seeking to be real,

stops.

Pete

>

> >

>

September 13, 2004

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

> > Pete,

> >

> > There is no other seat...or point of reference...for the identified

> entity =

> > to move to.

> >

> > Its existential totality IS its seat.

> >

> > Even it another seat were available...the entity lacks the

> volitional eleme=

> > nts necessary to

> > accomplish the move..............

> >

> > toombaru

>

> It's not the entity who sees. It's not the entity who moves, Toom.

> We are in agreement the entity is a fiction. The seat was a meta4,

> moving was a meta4. No need to take meta4s literaly.

When the brain

> sees clearly, the thrashing about of thoughts seeking to be real,

> stops.

>

The brain is a merely a machine....It sees nothing............

.....a wave that stops thrashing is no longer a wave.....a river...not

moving....is no river.............still wind....does not exist.....and when

thoughts

stop thrashing..........the " world " comes to an end........................

September 13, 2004

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

> > Pete,

> >

> > There is no other seat...or point of reference...for the identified

> entity =

> > to move to.

> >

> > Its existential totality IS its seat.

> >

> > Even it another seat were available...the entity lacks the

> volitional eleme=

> > nts necessary to

> > accomplish the move..............

> >

> > toombaru

>

> It's not the entity who sees. It's not the entity who moves, Toom.

> We are in agreement the entity is a fiction. The seat was a meta4,

> moving was a meta4. No need to take meta4s literaly.

When the brain

> sees clearly, the thrashing about of thoughts seeking to be real,

> stops.

>

The brain is a merely a machine....It sees nothing............

.....a wave that stops thrashing is no longer a wave.....a river...not

moving....is no river.............still wind....does not exist.....and when

thoughts

stop thrashing..........the " world " comes to an end........................

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

yes

but again, is brain a metaphor here?

yet, what is the " seeing clearly " ?

or is " seeing clearly " too a metaphor,

a metaphor for the " stops thrashing " ...

Bill

September 13, 2004

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...>

wrote:

> > > Pete,

> > >

> > > There is no other seat...or point of reference...for the

identified

> > entity =

> > > to move to.

> > >

> > > Its existential totality IS its seat.

> > >

> > > Even it another seat were available...the entity lacks the

> > volitional eleme=

> > > nts necessary to

> > > accomplish the move..............

> > >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > It's not the entity who sees. It's not the entity who moves,

Toom.

> > We are in agreement the entity is a fiction. The seat was a

meta4,

> > moving was a meta4. No need to take meta4s literaly.

>

> When the brain

> > sees clearly, the thrashing about of thoughts seeking to be real,

> > stops.

> >

>

> The brain is a merely a machine....It sees nothing............

True it's a machine, but that it doesn't see, that is just your

prejudice. Where could that prejudice come from? From where

all prejudice comes, the need to feel superior, special?

To admit 'you' are the brain, would mean you are no better than a

monkey, not divine. And who is this 'you' not wanting to be

'matter', and not wanting to be 'nothing' either? It's no other

than the pseudo-entity which cleverly thinks itself to be " This "

or Consciousness, or whatever other grandioze identification it has

retreated to.

Pete

September 14, 2004

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...>

wrote:

> > When the brain

> > > sees clearly, the thrashing about of thoughts seeking to be

real,

> > > stops.

> > >

> >

> > The brain is a merely a machine....It sees nothing............

> True it's a machine, but that it doesn't see, that is just your

> prejudice. Where could that prejudice come from? From where

> all prejudice comes, the need to feel superior, special?

> To admit 'you' are the brain, would mean you are no better than a

> monkey, not divine. And who is this 'you' not wanting to be

> 'matter', and not wanting to be 'nothing' either? It's no other

> than the pseudo-entity which cleverly thinks itself to be " This "

> or Consciousness, or whatever other grandioze identification it has

> retreated to.

>

> Pete

Now we have a pseudo-entity which cleverly thinks that it is a brain,

no better than a monkey, no divine.

This pseudo entity seems to believe that this prejudice is somehow

better than the other one.

Len

September 14, 2004

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...>

wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...>

> wrote:

>

> > > When the brain

> > > > sees clearly, the thrashing about of thoughts seeking to be

> real,

> > > > stops.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The brain is a merely a machine....It sees nothing............

>

> > True it's a machine, but that it doesn't see, that is just your

> > prejudice. Where could that prejudice come from? From where

> > all prejudice comes, the need to feel superior, special?

> > To admit 'you' are the brain, would mean you are no better than a

> > monkey, not divine. And who is this 'you' not wanting to be

> > 'matter', and not wanting to be 'nothing' either? It's no other

> > than the pseudo-entity which cleverly thinks itself to be " This "

> > or Consciousness, or whatever other grandioze identification it

has

> > retreated to.

> >

> > Pete

>

> Now we have a pseudo-entity which cleverly thinks that it is a

brain,

> no better than a monkey, no divine.

> This pseudo entity seems to believe that this prejudice is somehow

> better than the other one.

>

> Len

P: No, that's not it. The point is very easy to miss.

To confront someone with the notion that the brain

is the machine, which produces all mental phenomena,

including consciousness, and the psudo-entity , it

is just a belief challenging device. The goal is to

shake loose all those beliefs in I'm...this,

or...that, or ...the other, including, of course,

I'm the brain. The very formula: I'm X, is flawed,

It poses an " I " who equals an " X, " thereby creating

a duality. In Advaita " I " can only equal " I " .As long

as there is qualifying, and categorizing of perception,

the open, and the undivided will not be there.

Pete

September 14, 2004

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...>

> wrote:

> > > > Pete,

> > > >

> > > > There is no other seat...or point of reference...for the

> identified

> > > entity =

> > > > to move to.

> > > >

> > > > Its existential totality IS its seat.

> > > >

> > > > Even it another seat were available...the entity lacks the

> > > volitional eleme=

> > > > nts necessary to

> > > > accomplish the move..............

> > > >

> > > > toombaru

> > >

> > > It's not the entity who sees. It's not the entity who moves,

> Toom.

> > > We are in agreement the entity is a fiction. The seat was a

> meta4,

> > > moving was a meta4. No need to take meta4s literaly.

> >

> > When the brain

> > > sees clearly, the thrashing about of thoughts seeking to be real,

> > > stops.

> > >

> >

> > The brain is a merely a machine....It sees nothing............

>

> True it's a machine, but that it doesn't see, that is just your

> prejudice. Where could that prejudice come from? From where

> all prejudice comes, the need to feel superior, special?

> To admit 'you' are the brain, would mean you are no better than a

> monkey, not divine. And who is this 'you' not wanting to be

> 'matter', and not wanting to be 'nothing' either? It's no other

> than the pseudo-entity which cleverly thinks itself to be " This "

> or Consciousness, or whatever other grandioze identification it has

> retreated to.

>

> Pete

Hi. My name is Robert, and I'll introduce myself a bit more when I

get a chance.

I would have to agree that the brain doesn't see. The best it can do

is record a visual image and place it on an internal screen, as it

were. But it cannot see it. Without consciousness, which is somewhat

different than the mechanical processes of the brain, there is no seeing.

You are correct I think, however, that there is also no one to be

identified as a seer of the seen. And that is why it is so diffcult

to talk about consciousness and not to associate it with an entity of

some kind who gets to be the seer. i think it is both that are true,

that the brain does not see, and there is also no entity to see.

Seeing is a kind of dreamlike activity that takes place in

consciousness and is evanescent and momentary, having no abode and no

one to whom it occurs or refers. This points to the nature of

consciousness itself, which is like a screen created within still

awareness in order to create the illusion of subject-object and

activity of various kinds.

My thoughts for the moment, although the " my " in that sentence is just

a convention.

Best,

Robert

September 15, 2004

Nisargadatta , " Robert Epstein " <epsteinrob@m...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...>

> > wrote:

> > > > > Pete,

> > > > >

> > > > > There is no other seat...or point of reference...for the

> > identified

> > > > entity =

> > > > > to move to.

> > > > >

> > > > > Its existential totality IS its seat.

> > > > >

> > > > > Even it another seat were available...the entity lacks the

> > > > volitional eleme=

> > > > > nts necessary to

> > > > > accomplish the move..............

> > > > >

> > > > > toombaru

> > > >

> > > > It's not the entity who sees. It's not the entity who moves,

> > Toom.

> > > > We are in agreement the entity is a fiction. The seat was a

> > meta4,

> > > > moving was a meta4. No need to take meta4s literaly.

> > >

> > > When the brain

> > > > sees clearly, the thrashing about of thoughts seeking to be real,

> > > > stops.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The brain is a merely a machine....It sees nothing............

> >

> > True it's a machine, but that it doesn't see, that is just your

> > prejudice. Where could that prejudice come from? From where

> > all prejudice comes, the need to feel superior, special?

> > To admit 'you' are the brain, would mean you are no better than a

> > monkey, not divine. And who is this 'you' not wanting to be

> > 'matter', and not wanting to be 'nothing' either? It's no other

> > than the pseudo-entity which cleverly thinks itself to be " This "

> > or Consciousness, or whatever other grandioze identification it has

> > retreated to.

> >

> > Pete

>

> Hi. My name is Robert, and I'll introduce myself a bit more when I

> get a chance.

>

> I would have to agree that the brain doesn't see. The best it can do

> is record a visual image and place it on an internal screen, as it

> were. But it cannot see it. Without consciousness, which is somewhat

> different than the mechanical processes of the brain, there is no seeing.

>

> You are correct I think, however, that there is also no one to be

> identified as a seer of the seen. And that is why it is so diffcult

> to talk about consciousness and not to associate it with an entity of

> some kind who gets to be the seer. i think it is both that are true,

> that the brain does not see, and there is also no entity to see.

> Seeing is a kind of dreamlike activity that takes place in

> consciousness and is evanescent and momentary, having no abode and no

> one to whom it occurs or refers. This points to the nature of

> consciousness itself, which is like a screen created within still

> awareness in order to create the illusion of subject-object and

> activity of various kinds.

>

> My thoughts for the moment, although the " my " in that sentence is just

> a convention.

>

> Best,

> Robert

Hi Robert,

This......concept of " consciousness " attempting to get a handle on

its self....may only arise as an activity within the neurons in the frontal

cortex of the human brain.

What is " consciousness " anyhow but thought becoming aware if its own

activity?......thought becoming....circular.....reflective...........mesmerized

by its own peculiar dance....

What is the entity.....but a temporal reflection.....a most mysterious mirage?

The entity is only a by-product of this involuntary roof brain chatter.......

It exists downstream from the search for itself............

I don't know about " you " ........but any conceptual machinations that appear to

come from " me " are only..... the me ..........talking to the me..........just

those pesky brain cells........stuck up there in the dark......trying their

damndest.....to figure out what in the hell is going on out there....in their

own dream.

(something you wrote......stimulated the me here to write the above......It is

not intended to comment on what was said through the you there.....It is

only.....consciousness........playing with itself......:-)

toombaru

September 15, 2004

Robert wrote: