Guest guest Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 The present is always lit, because it is the presence of the Absolute, and the light of the Absolute falls on the present. There is nothing to worry about or fear in the present. Past and future are very dark, and that is where the fears are, and it is only fears of some sort which drag individuals to the past or the future. It is much better and more economical for us to avail ourselves of the brilliance and the light and knowledge which are of the present, and not to associate ourselves with the darkness which really belongs to the past or the future. They visit us and concern us sometimes. Whenever we wake up and find that we are travelling towards the darkness of the past or future, please come into the light of the day - the light of the present. Sri Shantanand Saraswati Nisargadatta wrote: There are 25 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Re: Practice " cerosoul " 2. Re: Practice " Werner Woehr " 3. Imitating Toom " cerosoul " 4. Re: Imitating Toom " toombaru2004 " 5. Practice " cerosoul " 6. Re: Imitating Toom " cerosoul " 7. Re: Imitating Toom " toombaru2004 " 8. Re: Imitating Toom " kipalmazy " 9. Re: Imitating Toom " toombaru2004 " 10. Re: true self " kipalmazy " 11. Re: Practice " anders_lindman " 12. Re: Practice " cerosoul " 13. Re: true self " toombaru2004 " 14. Re: Practice " anders_lindman " 15. Re: Practice " anders_lindman " 16. Toombarus mask " Stefan " 17. Re: Toombarus mask " toombaru2004 " 18. Re: Toombarus mask " Stefan " 19. Re: Toombarus mask " toombaru2004 " 20. Re: Toombarus mask " cerosoul " 21. Fear-based world " anders_lindman " 22. Re: Toombarus mask " Stefan " 23. Re: Practice " Stefan " 24. Re: Practice " anders_lindman " 25. Re: Practice " Stefan " ______________________ ______________________ Message: 1 Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:14:19 -0000 " cerosoul " Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " wrote: > > Hi Pete, > > My post wasn't meant sarcastic or even as an attack. I just wanted to > bring what you wrote down to a more practical view. > > You wrote: > > It's great to hear that your understanding is getting softer. > > Yeah, but I am still blind and projecting (which I tend to call > analysis) > > When it comes to wagging my tail I rather prefer to lead a peaceful > life > > Hope you are fine ... Werner Your comment wasn't taken as negative. I was just pointing out that what I write has not changed that much, so maybe your understanding has. Am I right in assuming you live alone, have few friends? Please, always count me as a friend, Pete ______________________ ______________________ Message: 2 Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:11:25 -0000 " Werner Woehr " Re: Practice Hi Pete, Fine that you haven't seen my comment as negative. To answer your question: Yes I am living alone and have few friends. Werner Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > wrote: > > > > Hi Pete, > > > > My post wasn't meant sarcastic or even as an attack. I just wanted > to > > bring what you wrote down to a more practical view. > > > > You wrote: > > > It's great to hear that your understanding is getting softer. > > > > Yeah, but I am still blind and projecting (which I tend to call > > analysis) > > > > When it comes to wagging my tail I rather prefer to lead a peaceful > > life > > > > Hope you are fine ... Werner > > Your comment wasn't taken as negative. I was just pointing out > that what I write has not changed that much, so maybe your > understanding has. Am I right in assuming you live alone, > have few friends? > Please, always count me as a friend, > > Pete ______________________ ______________________ Message: 3 Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:33:41 -0000 " cerosoul " Imitating Toom A large tribe of nondual cliff dwellers..... are only.... gramatically enlightened. They believe.... that.............writing their name in lower case, and avoiding pronouns is......a sure sign of realization. They think that liberation is...............simply a matter of............... juggling the right concepts with....... perfect nondual style. pet-E ______________________ ______________________ Message: 4 Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:48:21 -0000 " toombaru2004 " Re: Imitating Toom Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " wrote: > > A large tribe of nondual cliff dwellers..... > are only.... gramatically enlightened. They believe.... > that.............writing their name in lower case, and avoiding > pronouns is......a sure sign of realization. They think that > liberation is...............simply a matter of............... > juggling the right concepts with....... > perfect nondual style. > > pet-E .........perhaps you could inform us.... what liberation really is...... ______________________ ______________________ Message: 5 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:21:40 -0000 " cerosoul " Practice > Pete, > > when you say that things just happen, that isn't a good enough > explanation. > The eyes don't just open. There is a will and an intention to open > them that gets transmitted by nerves to muscles and then translated > into the action of opening the eyelids. > > Somewhere inside the psyche there is the arising of the will for > action. Together with that, there is the choice of either opening > the eyes or not. This choice is the free will. > > Chris Hi Chris, Let me start by saying: my post was in defense of practice. I don't much care if people want to think there is free will. But let's take a brief look ( brief because it's a popular football and by now well kicked around, and to me, boring)no doubt there is 'willing,'a form of energy or desire which sparks an action. But is it initiated by an entity? Is there inside my brain something called 'a Pete' who decides to open his eyes? What really happens is that the sleep control center of the brain switches off, consciousness returns. Once consciousness is there, the motor part of the brain in charge of eyelids, does its thing. There is no Pete involved in any of these. If there, have been enough drowsiness in the brain, the sleep center would have overruled the motor center, and the thought, " It's still early, I could stay here here a little longer. " would have appeared given me the illusion of a choice, and a decision made. All decisions could be traced back this way to underlying causes. So one could ask, where is the freedom in all of these, if there is no doer, but only causes leading to an action? Pete ______________________ ______________________ Message: 6 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:36:59 -0000 " cerosoul " Re: Imitating Toom Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " wrote: > > > > A large tribe of nondual cliff dwellers..... > > are only.... gramatically enlightened. They believe.... > > that.............writing their name in lower case, and avoiding > > pronouns is......a sure sign of realization. They think that > > liberation is...............simply a matter of............... > > juggling the right concepts with....... > > perfect nondual style. > > > > pet-E > > > > > ........perhaps you could inform us.... what liberation really is...... That of course, depends on what binds each person. We all, don't fear the same things, have the same addictions, and shortcomings. Each brain is not endowed or flawed in the same exact way. But one thing is for sure, intellectual underestanding only is not going to cleanse the brain, and restore the freshness with which once it looked at life. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 7 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:42:27 -0000 " toombaru2004 " Re: Imitating Toom Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > wrote: > > > > > > A large tribe of nondual cliff dwellers..... > > > are only.... gramatically enlightened. They believe.... > > > that.............writing their name in lower case, and avoiding > > > pronouns is......a sure sign of realization. They think that > > > liberation is...............simply a matter of............... > > > juggling the right concepts with....... > > > perfect nondual style. > > > > > > pet-E > > > > > > > > > > ........perhaps you could inform us.... what liberation really > is...... > > That of course, depends on what binds each person. We all, don't > fear the same things, have the same addictions, and > shortcomings. Each brain is not endowed or flawed in the same > exact way. But one thing is for sure, intellectual underestanding > only is not going to cleanse the brain, and restore the freshness > with which once it looked at life. The illusion of separation....... IS painful. The identification with limitation is a hopeless situation indeed.....it can lead only to oblivion. The Buddha was right....It IS suffering. This inevitable suffering and loneliness....is counterbalanced in the human psyche by the invented supposition that at one time.....in the distant past.....it was pristine and perfect......It envisions a garden...before conceptualization.....where it existed in its original naturalness.........It then attempts...through its own efforts.... to return to this make believe land........ What if all of that is only a conceptual pain killer? What if the supposed self was never pristine? What if it can never cleanse itself of the illusion of realness? What if....its totality is only what is.....right now? ........no future...no past.....just THIS? toombaru ______________________ ______________________ Message: 8 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:18:29 -0000 " kipalmazy " Re: Imitating Toom > What if....its totality is only what is.....right now? > > .......no future...no past.....just THIS? Isn't that a pain-killer, too? What if.....there is no totality.....right now? ......a future....a past.....all just, what it seems to be? What causes the pain?....the things?.....your thoughts?.....where is the thorn? Don't treat yourself symptomatically....no more palliative measures....set up the right diagnosis.......and........use the scalpel! Who will care any longer, then? Kip Almazy ______________________ ______________________ Message: 9 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:05:33 -0000 " toombaru2004 " Re: Imitating Toom Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " wrote: > > > What if....its totality is only what is.....right now? > > > > .......no future...no past.....just THIS? > > > > > > Isn't that a pain-killer, too? > > > What if.....there is no totality.....right now? > > .....a future....a past.....all just, what it seems to be? > > What causes the pain?....the things?.....your thoughts?.....where is > the thorn? > > > > Don't treat yourself symptomatically....no more palliative > measures....set up the right diagnosis.......and........use the > scalpel! > > > > > Who will care any longer, then? > > > > Kip Almazy That............is a the mystery...eh? ______________________ ______________________ Message: 10 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:29:41 -0000 " kipalmazy " Re: true self " In our true self we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our ego with the other and though we people our internal world with selves and others, and though we are spoken to and for by the Other that is speech … the absolute core of one's being is a wordless, imageless solitude. We cannot reach this true self through insight or introspection. Only by living from this authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample that we are. " [1989 p 21]. --Bollas The whole concept if " true self....false self " ....is only an extension of the dicotomy in which mind exists......It " lives " in a pseuso world of opposing opposites......outside of that dream of separation...it cannot breathe. Kip: Indeed! The whole psychoanalytical milieu is immersed in the assumption of a separate self.... Kip: This isn't a balanced statement and wrong, too. A preconception. Easy to rebut. Many things have changed since Freud. I interpret such statements as a defense-mechanism on a wider sense, and, in a concret sense, your are defending the opposite assumption. If I say: " the adavitian community is immersed in the assumption of a not separated self " , would that be correct? Surely not! It would be an oxymoron, or not? Are we not talking about..... " a self " , the whole time. You can only denie what you perceive and no matter in which disguise you do it. If I say: " the advaitian commnuity is immersed in the assumption of a not separated " Self " , it would be easier to accept, perhaps. But, what I can state with certainity is: " the psychoanalytical milieu is not immersed neither in the assumption of an separated nor unseparated " self " or " Self " , neither physically nor conceptually. Within the psychoanalytical millieu (as I know it)there is a broad variaty of thesis or assumptions to find, concerning the " self " and " Self " . It is that assumption itself that is the crux if the dilemma.....downstream from that......nothing is true. Kip: This has been perhaps " YOUR " dilemma, Toombaru. The concept of an " unseparated self " , your assumption, has been helpfull for you and, surely, many others, too. But, the utterance: " downstream from that......nothing is true " lacks the attribute " false " , in my opinion. I would state it this way: " Assumptions are the crux.....down and upstream from that....nothing is true or false " . There is no " ego " .....it is only a concept that identification names its assumed self....and then attempts to study...... Kip: Sure! That's exactly why I tend to quote Lacan, for example. One of the most known quotes of Winnicott himself ( " the true self- man " ) is, that there is no such thing as an infant. Isn't that particular? Made me think, somehow. Ramesh uses the " vertical- horizontal-thingy " , which could be attributed to Kohut, for example. I like cross-fecundations. The only thing one can loose are useless assumptions and preconceptions, in my opinion. The so called self....is as real..... as the people in your dream last night........ Kip: Exactly! I assume the same but, it seems to me, we draw different conclusions. What I conclude is that " I " can simply not know, exactly on account of this circumstance. This is the case. No matter how many somersets I turn. It doesn't matter if I use or not use pronouns. Every attempt to demonstrate some kind of otherness or dissimilarity is a ridiculous affectation. And here is where the concept of true self comes in. " True self " means also to renounce to artificialness. To remove the make up. To see through the defense- mechanisms of the ego (and, above all, the resistances of the " Über- ich " ). Some psychoanalytical standpoints might help, perhaps, or perhaps not. > There is no true self...... Kip: Indeed! There is not such thing as good or a bad infant! > There is no self...... Kip: There is not such thing as an infant! The point isn´t to regress to a state, which could be considered better or wronger. It is about evolving towards emancipation and realisation. To umask oneself. To lay down artificiality. To stop to fear, that someone may discover what big bluff actually one constitutes. Laugh! Kip Almazy ______________________ ______________________ Message: 11 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:01:40 -0000 " anders_lindman " Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " wrote: > > > Pete, > > > > when you say that things just happen, that isn't a good enough > > explanation. > > The eyes don't just open. There is a will and an intention to open > > them that gets transmitted by nerves to muscles and then translated > > into the action of opening the eyelids. > > > > Somewhere inside the psyche there is the arising of the will for > > action. Together with that, there is the choice of either opening > > the eyes or not. This choice is the free will. > > > > Chris > > Hi Chris, > > Let me start by saying: my post was in defense of practice. > I don't much care if people want to think there is free will. > But let's take a brief look ( brief because it's a popular > football and by now well kicked around, and to me, boring)no > doubt there is 'willing,'a form of energy or desire which > sparks an action. > > But is it initiated by an entity? Is there inside my brain > something called 'a Pete' who decides to open his eyes? > What really happens is that the sleep control center > of the brain switches off, consciousness returns. Once consciousness > is there, the motor part of the brain in > charge of eyelids, does its thing. There is no Pete > involved in any of these. If there, have been enough > drowsiness in the brain, the sleep center would have > overruled the motor center, and the thought, " It's > still early, I could stay here here a little longer. " > would have appeared given me the illusion of a choice, > and a decision made. > > All decisions could be traced back this way to > underlying causes. So one could ask, where is the > freedom in all of these, if there is no doer, > but only causes leading to an action? > > Pete Freedom lies perhaps in the snapping, breaking of the cause-and- effect chain. Then what happens.......is experienced as a total movement........and then one's will is possibly truly free. /AL ______________________ ______________________ Message: 12 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:26:41 -0000 " cerosoul " Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " wrote: > > > > > Pete, > > > > > > when you say that things just happen, that isn't a good enough > > > explanation. > > > The eyes don't just open. There is a will and an intention to open > > > them that gets transmitted by nerves to muscles and then > translated > > > into the action of opening the eyelids. > > > > > > Somewhere inside the psyche there is the arising of the will for > > > action. Together with that, there is the choice of either opening > > > the eyes or not. This choice is the free will. > > > > > > Chris > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Let me start by saying: my post was in defense of practice. > > I don't much care if people want to think there is free will. > > But let's take a brief look ( brief because it's a popular > > football and by now well kicked around, and to me, boring)no > > doubt there is 'willing,'a form of energy or desire which > > sparks an action. > > > > But is it initiated by an entity? Is there inside my brain > > something called 'a Pete' who decides to open his eyes? > > What really happens is that the sleep control center > > of the brain switches off, consciousness returns. Once consciousness > > is there, the motor part of the brain in > > charge of eyelids, does its thing. There is no Pete > > involved in any of these. If there, have been enough > > drowsiness in the brain, the sleep center would have > > overruled the motor center, and the thought, " It's > > still early, I could stay here here a little longer. " > > would have appeared given me the illusion of a choice, > > and a decision made. > > > > All decisions could be traced back this way to > > underlying causes. So one could ask, where is the > > freedom in all of these, if there is no doer, > > but only causes leading to an action? > > > > Pete > > Freedom lies perhaps in the snapping, breaking of the cause-and- > effect chain. Then what happens.......is experienced as a total > movement........and then one's will is possibly truly free. > > /AL Al, take a closer look at what you wrote, your paragraph has 3 sentences which are not logically related. Only one of those sentences rings true. The cause an effect chain never snaps. It's how nature works. It is a given. " Will " , just being a link in the above chain, can never exist by itself, and therefore, can never be free, uncontaminte by other causes. Yes, what happens can be experienced as a total movement, but this has nothing to do with 'will.' Pete ______________________ ______________________ Message: 13 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:39:04 -0000 " toombaru2004 " Re: true self Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " wrote: > > " In our true self we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our > ego with the other and though we people our internal world with > selves and others, and though we are spoken to and for by the Other > that is speech … the absolute core of one's being is a > wordless, imageless solitude. We cannot reach this true self > through insight or introspection. Only by living from this > authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample that we > are. " [1989 p 21]. > > --Bollas > > > The whole concept if " true self....false self " ....is only an > extension of the dicotomy in which mind exists......It " lives " in a > pseuso world of opposing opposites......outside of that dream of > separation...it cannot breathe. > > > Kip: Indeed! > > > The whole psychoanalytical milieu is immersed in the assumption of a > separate self.... > > > Kip: This isn't a balanced statement and wrong, too. A > preconception. Easy to rebut. Many things have changed since Freud. > I interpret such statements as a defense-mechanism on a wider sense, > and, in a concret sense, your are defending the opposite assumption. > If I say: " the adavitian community is immersed in the assumption of > a not separated self " , would that be correct? > > > Surely not! It would be an oxymoron, or not? Are we not talking > about..... " a self " , the whole time. You can only denie what you > perceive and no matter in which disguise you do it. > > If I say: " the advaitian commnuity is immersed in the assumption of > a not separated " Self " , it would be easier to accept, perhaps. > > > But, what I can state with certainity is: " the psychoanalytical > milieu is not immersed neither in the assumption of an separated nor > unseparated " self " or " Self " , neither physically nor conceptually. > Within the psychoanalytical millieu (as I know it)there is a broad > variaty of thesis or assumptions to find, concerning the " self " > and " Self " . > > > > > It is that assumption itself that is the crux if the > dilemma.....downstream from that......nothing is true. > > > > Kip: This has been perhaps " YOUR " dilemma, Toombaru. The concept of > an " unseparated self " , your assumption, has been helpfull for you > and, surely, many others, too. But, the utterance: " downstream from > that......nothing is true " lacks the attribute " false " , in my > opinion. I would state it this way: " Assumptions are the > crux.....down and upstream from that....nothing is true or > false " . > > > > There is no " ego " .....it is only a concept that identification names > its assumed self....and then attempts to study...... > > > Kip: Sure! That's exactly why I tend to quote Lacan, for example. > One of the most known quotes of Winnicott himself ( " the true self- > man " ) is, that there is no such thing as an infant. Isn't that > particular? Made me think, somehow. Ramesh uses the " vertical- > horizontal-thingy " , which could be attributed to Kohut, for example. > I like cross-fecundations. The only thing one can loose are useless > assumptions and preconceptions, in my opinion. > > > The so called self....is as real..... as the people in your dream > last night........ > > > Kip: Exactly! I assume the same but, it seems to me, we draw > different conclusions. What I conclude is that " I " can simply not > know, exactly on account of this circumstance. This is the case. No > matter how many somersets I turn. It doesn't matter if I use or not > use pronouns. Every attempt to demonstrate some kind of otherness or > dissimilarity is a ridiculous affectation. And here is where the > concept of true self comes in. " True self " means also to renounce to > artificialness. To remove the make up. To see through the defense- > mechanisms of the ego (and, above all, the resistances of the " Über- > ich " ). Some psychoanalytical standpoints might help, perhaps, or > perhaps not. > > > > There is no true self...... > > > Kip: Indeed! There is not such thing as good or a bad infant! > > > > There is no self...... > > > Kip: There is not such thing as an infant! > > > The point isn´t to regress to a state, which could be considered > better or wronger. It is about evolving towards emancipation and > realisation. To umask oneself. To lay down artificiality. To stop to > fear, that someone may discover what big bluff actually one > constitutes. Laugh! There is nothing behind the mask. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 14 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:51:52 -0000 " anders_lindman " Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > wrote: > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > > > > > when you say that things just happen, that isn't a good enough > > > > explanation. > > > > The eyes don't just open. There is a will and an intention to > open > > > > them that gets transmitted by nerves to muscles and then > > translated > > > > into the action of opening the eyelids. > > > > > > > > Somewhere inside the psyche there is the arising of the will for > > > > action. Together with that, there is the choice of either > opening > > > > the eyes or not. This choice is the free will. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > Let me start by saying: my post was in defense of practice. > > > I don't much care if people want to think there is free will. > > > But let's take a brief look ( brief because it's a popular > > > football and by now well kicked around, and to me, boring)no > > > doubt there is 'willing,'a form of energy or desire which > > > sparks an action. > > > > > > But is it initiated by an entity? Is there inside my brain > > > something called 'a Pete' who decides to open his eyes? > > > What really happens is that the sleep control center > > > of the brain switches off, consciousness returns. Once > consciousness > > > is there, the motor part of the brain in > > > charge of eyelids, does its thing. There is no Pete > > > involved in any of these. If there, have been enough > > > drowsiness in the brain, the sleep center would have > > > overruled the motor center, and the thought, " It's > > > still early, I could stay here here a little longer. " > > > would have appeared given me the illusion of a choice, > > > and a decision made. > > > > > > All decisions could be traced back this way to > > > underlying causes. So one could ask, where is the > > > freedom in all of these, if there is no doer, > > > but only causes leading to an action? > > > > > > Pete > > > > Freedom lies perhaps in the snapping, breaking of the cause-and- > > effect chain. Then what happens.......is experienced as a total > > movement........and then one's will is possibly truly free. > > > > /AL > > Al, take a closer look at what you wrote, your paragraph has 3 > sentences which are not logically related. Only one of those > sentences rings true. > > The cause an effect chain never snaps. It's how nature works. It is a > given. > > " Will " , just being a link in the above chain, can never exist by > itself, and therefore, can never be free, uncontaminte by other > causes. > > Yes, what happens can be experienced as a total movement, but this > has nothing to do with 'will.' > > Pete Cause and effect as a chain is an illusion of a fragmented view. Cause and effect is an interrelated web where no event happens in isolation. When we focus on a part of this wholeness there is the appearance of isolated chains of cause and effect........but when seen from the perspective of the whole all separate chains are illusions. /AL ______________________ ______________________ Message: 15 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:59:55 -0000 " anders_lindman " Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > > > > > > > when you say that things just happen, that isn't a good enough > > > > > explanation. > > > > > The eyes don't just open. There is a will and an intention to > > open > > > > > them that gets transmitted by nerves to muscles and then > > > translated > > > > > into the action of opening the eyelids. > > > > > > > > > > Somewhere inside the psyche there is the arising of the will > for > > > > > action. Together with that, there is the choice of either > > opening > > > > > the eyes or not. This choice is the free will. > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > Let me start by saying: my post was in defense of practice. > > > > I don't much care if people want to think there is free will. > > > > But let's take a brief look ( brief because it's a popular > > > > football and by now well kicked around, and to me, boring)no > > > > doubt there is 'willing,'a form of energy or desire which > > > > sparks an action. > > > > > > > > But is it initiated by an entity? Is there inside my brain > > > > something called 'a Pete' who decides to open his eyes? > > > > What really happens is that the sleep control center > > > > of the brain switches off, consciousness returns. Once > > consciousness > > > > is there, the motor part of the brain in > > > > charge of eyelids, does its thing. There is no Pete > > > > involved in any of these. If there, have been enough > > > > drowsiness in the brain, the sleep center would have > > > > overruled the motor center, and the thought, " It's > > > > still early, I could stay here here a little longer. " > > > > would have appeared given me the illusion of a choice, > > > > and a decision made. > > > > > > > > All decisions could be traced back this way to > > > > underlying causes. So one could ask, where is the > > > > freedom in all of these, if there is no doer, > > > > but only causes leading to an action? > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > Freedom lies perhaps in the snapping, breaking of the cause-and- > > > effect chain. Then what happens.......is experienced as a total > > > movement........and then one's will is possibly truly free. > > > > > > /AL > > > > Al, take a closer look at what you wrote, your paragraph has 3 > > sentences which are not logically related. Only one of those > > sentences rings true. > > > > The cause an effect chain never snaps. It's how nature works. It is > a > > given. > > > > " Will " , just being a link in the above chain, can never exist by > > itself, and therefore, can never be free, uncontaminte by other > > causes. > > > > Yes, what happens can be experienced as a total movement, but this > > has nothing to do with 'will.' > > > > Pete > > Cause and effect as a chain is an illusion of a fragmented view. > Cause and effect is an interrelated web where no event happens in > isolation. When we focus on a part of this wholeness there is the > appearance of isolated chains of cause and effect........but when > seen from the perspective of the whole all separate chains are > illusions. > > /AL PS. There are levels of will, where the separate egoic will is the most limited. When the focus embraces more and more of totality then one's will becomes more and more open, more and more in line with the God-Force. May the Force be with you! :-) /AL ______________________ ______________________ Message: 16 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:36:06 -0000 " Stefan " Toombarus mask Toombaru wrote: >There is nothing behind the mask. hi... who was writing this sentence then, your mask? S. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 17 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:45:07 -0000 " toombaru2004 " Re: Toombarus mask Nisargadatta , " Stefan " wrote: > > Toombaru wrote: > >There is nothing behind the mask. > > hi... who was writing this sentence then, your mask? > > S. Oh you silly boy........masks can't write. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 18 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:51:49 -0000 " Stefan " Re: Toombarus mask Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " wrote: > > > > Toombaru wrote: > > >There is nothing behind the mask. > > > > hi... who was writing this sentence then, your mask? > > > > S. > > > > Oh you silly boy........masks can't write. so, who wrote this sentence then, and ... avoided the question? S. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 19 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:00:56 -0000 " toombaru2004 " Re: Toombarus mask Nisargadatta , " Stefan " wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > wrote: > > > > > > Toombaru wrote: > > > >There is nothing behind the mask. > > > > > > hi... who was writing this sentence then, your mask? > > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > Oh you silly boy........masks can't write. > > so, who wrote this sentence then, and ... avoided the question? > > S. Consciousness itself. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 20 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:14:39 -0000 " cerosoul " Re: Toombarus mask Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Toombaru wrote: > > > > >There is nothing behind the mask. > > > > > > > > hi... who was writing this sentence then, your mask? > > > > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh you silly boy........masks can't write. > > > > so, who wrote this sentence then, and ... avoided the question? > > > > S. > > > > Consciousness itself. Ha, ha! Pedalling back! So consciousness is behind the mask, you say now. So what is behind consciousness? Let's spin the loop! LOL ______________________ ______________________ Message: 21 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:35:36 -0000 " anders_lindman " Fear-based world Virtually everything in this world is a result of seeming conflict. Humanity slouches forward driven by genetic impulses and social conditionings which both are sprung from a belief in scarcity, vulnerability and separation; meaning fear. This Matrix of fear is an illusionary impersonal pattern controlling humanity. An example of this control is the fear almost everybody has about what other people will think or say about them. Another example of control is the mental inherited and conditioned belief in bodily protection. This control is often not recognized as an external illusion of fear but rather as an idea of a personal self - an ego. The global fear-based control structure holds itself in place, and its effects can readibly be seen in media, business and in the entertainment industry. The Matrix is both a prison for humanity and also a good generator for drama and creativity. But there comes a time when a dog-eat-dog - and you-scratch-my-back-and-I-scratch-your-back world has reached its evolutionary summit. The Matrix has you... ;-) /AL ______________________ ______________________ Message: 22 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:36:45 -0000 " Stefan " Re: Toombarus mask Toombaru wrote: >There is nothing behind the mask. hi... who was writing this sentence then, your mask? Toombaru wrote: >Oh you silly boy........masks can't write. so, who wrote this sentence then, and ... avoided the question? Toombaru wrote: >Consciousness itself. Does this mean consciousness is behind the mask? S. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 23 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:39:54 -0000 " Stefan " Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " wrote: > PS. There are levels of will, where the separate egoic will is the > most limited. When the focus embraces more and more of totality then > one's will becomes more and more open, more and more in line with the > God-Force. May the Force be with you! :-) > > /AL Hi, you told me some time ago, that we are living always in the past since the moment we experience something it has already passed. So, how can there emerge a free will from a person living in the past? And be it even only a tiny little bit? Where should it originate? The origin would have to be in the presence... but how? I am sorry, I am really trying, but I cannot find any such sort of free will, initiating any kind of phenomenon. The moment I do something it seems to me as if it is happening, because there is no other way it could happen. If I watch it. Some actions seem to come from thoughts. But they are the same, they come from somewhere... The engine is always running... no full stop. Whenever I feel relatively good it is, because I flow. I guess that you are interested in Nisargadarras work, so I give you a quote from him to contemplate on: " As long as you take yourself to be a person, a body and a mind, separate from the stream of life, having a will of its own, pursuing its own aims, you are living merely on the surface, and whatever you do will be short-lived and of little value, mere straw to feed the flames of vanity. " Love S. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 24 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:58:38 -0000 " anders_lindman " Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " Stefan " wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > wrote: > > > PS. There are levels of will, where the separate egoic will is the > > most limited. When the focus embraces more and more of totality > then > > one's will becomes more and more open, more and more in line with > the > > God-Force. May the Force be with you! :-) > > > > /AL > > Hi, > > you told me some time ago, that we are living always in the past since > the moment we experience something it has already passed. So, how can > there emerge a free will from a person living in the past? And be it > even only a tiny little bit? Where should it originate? The origin > would have to be in the presence... but how? I am sorry, I am really > trying, but I cannot find any such sort of free will, initiating any > kind of phenomenon. The moment I do something it seems to me as if it > is happening, because there is no other way it could happen. If I > watch it. Some actions seem to come from thoughts. But they are the > same, they come from somewhere... The engine is always running... no > full stop. Whenever I feel relatively good it is, because I flow. > > I guess that you are interested in Nisargadarras work, so I give you a > quote from him to contemplate on: > > " As long as you take yourself to be a person, a body and a mind, > separate from the stream of life, having a will of its own, pursuing > its own aims, you are living merely on the surface, and whatever you > do will be short-lived and of little value, mere straw to feed the > flames of vanity. " > > Love > S. The past is genetic inheritance and social conditioning. This past is not the real you but a control-structure which we can call the Matrix. The true you, is, as Nisarhadatta says, not the so-called personal choices which are not personal at all but rather a carrying out the orders given by the fear-based structure which is the past. When you are guided by the past you are a mere puppet controlled by the Matrix. The true you is the infinite potential in the living moment. /AL ______________________ ______________________ Message: 25 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:36:25 -0000 " Stefan " Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " wrote: >The past is genetic inheritance and social conditioning. This past is >not the real you but a control-structure which we can call the >Matrix. The true you, is, as Nisarhadatta says, not the so-called >personal choices which are not personal at all but rather a carrying >out the orders given by the fear-based structure which is the past. >When you are guided by the past you are a mere puppet controlled by >the Matrix. The true you is the infinite potential in the living >moment. > > /AL So, can you see it now? No free will... Haha!!! And the next thing to understand (especially as you are talking about Nisargadatta now -smiles- ): there is no " true you " in the sense of a personality which can be called " you " . ... except in the past (or in science fiction movies... haha!) take care S. ______________________ ______________________ ** 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 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.