Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > > > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > ******************** > > > > > > > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has someting weird, > > > > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you replyied to him. > > > > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. But a dark > > > > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > > > > > > > Love > > > > Odysseus, > > > > > > That's called a Sith. > > > > > > Pete = Sith? Pete is alight with all your love and attention, Odysseus. > > My first encounters were exploratory as you may know. You enlarge him > > and expand him as he breathes the scented air of your compassion filled > > disses, Odysseus. But try speaking to him directly. He has a great calm > > in him, behind those exteriors presented that are sometimes gruff. > Drink > > him as he is. > > > > Lewis > > The thinking mind is a Sith. It can be. Anders how can thinking be suspended? Can it be suspended? Can one suspend thought through thinking, self-inquiry or self observation? How can it be done? Can it be done? Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 In a message dated 1/14/05 11:08:54 AM, anders_lindman writes: > >In the moment of peace there is a deep relaxation into > >what is. You then _feel_ good just by being present. Thoughts can then > >be enjoyed as colorful clouds drifting along... > P: This is the significant part of your message. This relaxation was a widening of attention to include the whole perceptual landscape without preference. In this totally, thoughts floated by just as part of the landscape. Then, a thought appears out of nowhere saying, " This is it, this is what I want always. " And attention focuses on that thought and the spell is broken. Back to the merry go around! Once that is seen, the trick is not to be fooled by any thought which wants to give preference to some part of the perceptual landscape. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > > > > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > ******************** > > > > > > > > > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has someting weird, > > > > > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you replyied to him. > > > > > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. But a dark > > > > > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > Odysseus, > > > > > > > > That's called a Sith. > > > > > > > > > Pete = Sith? Pete is alight with all your love and attention, Odysseus. > > > My first encounters were exploratory as you may know. You enlarge him > > > and expand him as he breathes the scented air of your compassion filled > > > disses, Odysseus. But try speaking to him directly. He has a great calm > > > in him, behind those exteriors presented that are sometimes gruff. > > Drink > > > him as he is. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > The thinking mind is a Sith. > > > > It can be. > > Anders how can thinking be suspended? Can it be suspended? Can one > suspend thought through thinking, self-inquiry or self observation? How > can it be done? Can it be done? > > > Lewis Pardon me for quoting Eckhart Tolle again: " Unfortenately, or fortenately, you cannot make yourself stop thinking, unless presence in you is so strong that it makes your thoughts stop. " Personally I have not experienced the suspension of thought. However, I have experienced deep states of peace where thoughts just floated. My goal is to find that kind of peace as my normal state of being. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 That's called a Sith. But try speaking to him directly. He has a great calm > in him, behind those exteriors presented that are sometimes gruff. Drink him as he is. > > Lewis ******************************** :0) Already done! What would be a Jedi if there were no Sith? Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > > > > > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > ******************** > > > > > > > > > > > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has someting > weird, > > > > > > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you replyied > to him. > > > > > > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. But a > dark > > > > > > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > > Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > That's called a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete = Sith? Pete is alight with all your love and attention, > Odysseus. > > > > My first encounters were exploratory as you may know. You > enlarge him > > > > and expand him as he breathes the scented air of your > compassion filled > > > > disses, Odysseus. But try speaking to him directly. He has a > great calm > > > > in him, behind those exteriors presented that are sometimes gruff. > > > Drink > > > > him as he is. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > The thinking mind is a Sith. > > > > > > > > It can be. > > > > Anders how can thinking be suspended? Can it be suspended? Can one > > suspend thought through thinking, self-inquiry or self observation? How > > can it be done? Can it be done? > > > > > > Lewis > > Pardon me for quoting Eckhart Tolle again: " Unfortenately, or > fortenately, you cannot make yourself stop thinking, unless presence > in you is so strong that it makes your thoughts stop. " > > Personally I have not experienced the suspension of thought. However, > I have experienced deep states of peace where thoughts just floated. > My goal is to find that kind of peace as my normal state of being. > > /AL Yes. In my experience the " mind " is a sophisticated mechanism with no off button. It is always on as it need be. How it produces thoughts, and interprets bodily sensations as feelings of this or that - grasping, frustration, upset, anxiety, fear, anger, dread, happiness, peace, love, ecstasy, oceanic sensations, oneness, etc. seems to be little understood. If one knew the how of it, one could manage or unmanage or maintain it it as one would any sophisticated mechanism. Or so it seems. The problem has been we can't hold it in our hands to examine to see how it works precisely. If it could be managed or unmanaged or maintained in some way, perhaps one could have whatever thoughts or state or condition of mind one desired. Do you think that this is possible, Anders? Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/14/05 10:30:58 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > Personally I have not experienced the suspension of thought. However, > > I have experienced deep states of peace where thoughts just floated. > > My goal is to find that kind of peace as my normal state of being. > > > > > > P: Where was your attention in that moment of peace? Was your attention > focussed in any thing in particular? > > What is a goal? Isn't a goal more thoughts chasing no thoughts? > What is the 'who' who has the goal? Is that 'who' different from > thoughts? > We can have goals for the future, and we can have goals for the present moment. In the moment of peace there is a deep relaxation into what is. You then _feel_ good just by being present. Thoughts can then be enjoyed as colorful clouds drifting along... I am not talking about a drug-induced experience here. When you are high on something, or in a relaxed state after having some glasses of wine, then there is just a hiding of contracted emotions; deep down you know that the sad states of your being is still there. True peace is a state where those sad states are being transcended. You _know_ yourself to feel good - through your very bones. That is to be truly fearless. That is to drink real bliss. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > > > > > > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > ******************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has someting > > weird, > > > > > > > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you replyied > > to him. > > > > > > > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. But a > > dark > > > > > > > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > > > Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > That's called a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete = Sith? Pete is alight with all your love and attention, > > Odysseus. > > > > > My first encounters were exploratory as you may know. You > > enlarge him > > > > > and expand him as he breathes the scented air of your > > compassion filled > > > > > disses, Odysseus. But try speaking to him directly. He has a > > great calm > > > > > in him, behind those exteriors presented that are sometimes gruff. > > > > Drink > > > > > him as he is. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > The thinking mind is a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > It can be. > > > > > > Anders how can thinking be suspended? Can it be suspended? Can one > > > suspend thought through thinking, self-inquiry or self observation? How > > > can it be done? Can it be done? > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Pardon me for quoting Eckhart Tolle again: " Unfortenately, or > > fortenately, you cannot make yourself stop thinking, unless presence > > in you is so strong that it makes your thoughts stop. " > > > > Personally I have not experienced the suspension of thought. However, > > I have experienced deep states of peace where thoughts just floated. > > My goal is to find that kind of peace as my normal state of being. > > > > /AL > > > Yes. In my experience the " mind " is a sophisticated mechanism with no > off button. It is always on as it need be. How it produces thoughts, and > interprets bodily sensations as feelings of this or that - grasping, > frustration, upset, anxiety, fear, anger, dread, happiness, peace, love, > ecstasy, oceanic sensations, oneness, etc. seems to be little > understood. If one knew the how of it, one could manage or unmanage or > maintain it it as one would any sophisticated mechanism. Or so it seems. > The problem has been we can't hold it in our hands to examine to see how > it works precisely. If it could be managed or unmanaged or maintained in > some way, perhaps one could have whatever thoughts or state or condition > of mind one desired. > > Do you think that this is possible, Anders? > > Lewis Thinking itself is the problem. One has to start observing the whole slab of thought/emotion and transcend it. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > > > > > > > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > ******************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has > someting > > > weird, > > > > > > > > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you > replyied > > > to him. > > > > > > > > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. > But a > > > dark > > > > > > > > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > > > > Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's called a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete = Sith? Pete is alight with all your love and attention, > > > Odysseus. > > > > > > My first encounters were exploratory as you may know. You > > > enlarge him > > > > > > and expand him as he breathes the scented air of your > > > compassion filled > > > > > > disses, Odysseus. But try speaking to him directly. He has a > > > great calm > > > > > > in him, behind those exteriors presented that are > sometimes gruff. > > > > > Drink > > > > > > him as he is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > The thinking mind is a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It can be. > > > > > > > > Anders how can thinking be suspended? Can it be suspended? Can one > > > > suspend thought through thinking, self-inquiry or self > observation? How > > > > can it be done? Can it be done? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Pardon me for quoting Eckhart Tolle again: " Unfortenately, or > > > fortenately, you cannot make yourself stop thinking, unless presence > > > in you is so strong that it makes your thoughts stop. " > > > > > > Personally I have not experienced the suspension of thought. However, > > > I have experienced deep states of peace where thoughts just floated. > > > My goal is to find that kind of peace as my normal state of being. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > Yes. In my experience the " mind " is a sophisticated mechanism with no > > off button. It is always on as it need be. How it produces thoughts, > and > > interprets bodily sensations as feelings of this or that - grasping, > > frustration, upset, anxiety, fear, anger, dread, happiness, peace, > love, > > ecstasy, oceanic sensations, oneness, etc. seems to be little > > understood. If one knew the how of it, one could manage or unmanage or > > maintain it it as one would any sophisticated mechanism. Or so it > seems. > > The problem has been we can't hold it in our hands to examine to see > how > > it works precisely. If it could be managed or unmanaged or > maintained in > > some way, perhaps one could have whatever thoughts or state or > condition > > of mind one desired. > > > > Do you think that this is possible, Anders? > > > > Lewis > > Thinking itself is the problem. One has to start observing the whole > slab of thought/emotion and transcend it. > > /AL > That is not what is being asked, Anders. The question was " Is it possible to transcend not the whole slab of thought/emotion which are products of the mind, but the mind itself? The whole slab is the bottom. It is mere product. Air. It can be a foul exhaust in some cases or beautifully scented and so on, if you will. It turns out to be vapors of various types produced by the mind. I was referring to being out of the mechanism that produces the whole slab, the vapors. To be out of mind altogether. This would be several steps removed from your starting point of self-observation. Discrete thoughts, emotions > the imagined slab > the mind itself > transcending mind, outside the mind > outside that. (These are analytics of experience and do not represent the experience in any linear or prescribed way) Let me blunt. Observing thoughts, experiencing emotions, self-inquiry, self-observation is the beginning point. It is getting off the merry go round and asking this and that. That is the beginning work to recognize that we have a mind in the first place and to see what it produces and how these products makes life what it has been. Self observation is a start as you say. But self-observation will not lead to transcending the mind. It leads to knowing content without understanding how content is produced nor to be outside the mind itself. One grows in knowledge of bits and pieces of stuff but there is no transcendence of mind with simple self-observation. So, again Anders, do you think that this is possible, to be completely out of your mind? I ask you because you use your mind in a certain distinctive way that is intriguing. So I want to drink you and other may want to as well in this. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 In a message dated 1/14/05 3:39:13 PM, lbb10 writes: > In the moment of peace there is a deep relaxation into > > > >what is. You then _feel_ good just by being present. Thoughts can then > > > >be enjoyed as colorful clouds drifting along... > > > > > P: This is the significant part of your message. This relaxation was a > > widening > > of attention to include the whole perceptual landscape without > > preference. In > > this totally, thoughts floated by just as part of the landscape. Then, a > > thought > > appears out of nowhere saying, " This is it, this is what I want always. " > > And > > attention > > focuses on that thought and the spell is broken. Back to the merry go > > around! > > Once that > > is seen, the trick is not to be fooled by any thought which wants to give > > preference > > to some part of the perceptual landscape. > > > >L: And then we can go back to the merry go round, getting on and off as we > >please or create new rides more suitable to the kind of air we breathe. > P: Yes, the merry go round is always available, and it is no problem once the getting on and off technique is perfected. Attention is the giver and taker of 'reality' (here used not in an existential way) but as what seems solid and alive, or what seems ghostly and dead. Attention operates regarding to reality as a lens operates regarding light. That is why mindfulness, being present with an alert still mind, is such a good practice for someone like Al. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 1/14/05 11:08:54 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > >In the moment of peace there is a deep relaxation into > > >what is. You then _feel_ good just by being present. Thoughts can then > > >be enjoyed as colorful clouds drifting along... > > > P: This is the significant part of your message. This relaxation was a > widening > of attention to include the whole perceptual landscape without > preference. In > this totally, thoughts floated by just as part of the landscape. Then, a > thought > appears out of nowhere saying, " This is it, this is what I want always. " > And > attention > focuses on that thought and the spell is broken. Back to the merry go > around! > Once that > is seen, the trick is not to be fooled by any thought which wants to give > preference > to some part of the perceptual landscape. And then we can go back to the merry go round, getting on and off as we please or create new rides more suitable to the kind of air we breathe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > > > > > > > > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > ******************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has > > someting > > > > weird, > > > > > > > > > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you > > replyied > > > > to him. > > > > > > > > > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. > > But a > > > > dark > > > > > > > > > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > > > > > Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's called a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete = Sith? Pete is alight with all your love and attention, > > > > Odysseus. > > > > > > > My first encounters were exploratory as you may know. You > > > > enlarge him > > > > > > > and expand him as he breathes the scented air of your > > > > compassion filled > > > > > > > disses, Odysseus. But try speaking to him directly. He has a > > > > great calm > > > > > > > in him, behind those exteriors presented that are > > sometimes gruff. > > > > > > Drink > > > > > > > him as he is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > The thinking mind is a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It can be. > > > > > > > > > > Anders how can thinking be suspended? Can it be suspended? Can one > > > > > suspend thought through thinking, self-inquiry or self > > observation? How > > > > > can it be done? Can it be done? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > Pardon me for quoting Eckhart Tolle again: " Unfortenately, or > > > > fortenately, you cannot make yourself stop thinking, unless presence > > > > in you is so strong that it makes your thoughts stop. " > > > > > > > > Personally I have not experienced the suspension of thought. However, > > > > I have experienced deep states of peace where thoughts just floated. > > > > My goal is to find that kind of peace as my normal state of being. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > Yes. In my experience the " mind " is a sophisticated mechanism with no > > > off button. It is always on as it need be. How it produces thoughts, > > and > > > interprets bodily sensations as feelings of this or that - grasping, > > > frustration, upset, anxiety, fear, anger, dread, happiness, peace, > > love, > > > ecstasy, oceanic sensations, oneness, etc. seems to be little > > > understood. If one knew the how of it, one could manage or unmanage or > > > maintain it it as one would any sophisticated mechanism. Or so it > > seems. > > > The problem has been we can't hold it in our hands to examine to see > > how > > > it works precisely. If it could be managed or unmanaged or > > maintained in > > > some way, perhaps one could have whatever thoughts or state or > > condition > > > of mind one desired. > > > > > > Do you think that this is possible, Anders? > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Thinking itself is the problem. One has to start observing the whole > > slab of thought/emotion and transcend it. > > > > /AL > > > > That is not what is being asked, Anders. The question was " Is it > possible to transcend not the whole slab of thought/emotion which are > products of the mind, but the mind itself? > > The whole slab is the bottom. It is mere product. Air. It can be a foul > exhaust in some cases or beautifully scented and so on, if you will. It > turns out to be vapors of various types produced by the mind. > > I was referring to being out of the mechanism that produces the whole > slab, the vapors. To be out of mind altogether. This would be several > steps removed from your starting point of self-observation. Discrete > thoughts, emotions > the imagined slab > the mind itself > transcending > mind, outside the mind > outside that. (These are analytics of > experience and do not represent the experience in any linear or > prescribed way) > > Let me blunt. Observing thoughts, experiencing emotions, self-inquiry, > self-observation is the beginning point. It is getting off the merry go > round and asking this and that. That is the beginning work to recognize > that we have a mind in the first place and to see what it produces and > how these products makes life what it has been. Self observation is a > start as you say. > > But self-observation will not lead to transcending the mind. It leads to > knowing content without understanding how content is produced nor to be > outside the mind itself. One grows in knowledge of bits and pieces of > stuff but there is no transcendence of mind with simple self-observation. > > So, again Anders, do you think that this is possible, to be completely > out of your mind? I ask you because you use your mind in a certain > distinctive way that is intriguing. So I want to drink you and other may > want to as well in this. > > Lewis For me mind is awareness + content. The content is thougths, feelings, emotions, sense perceptions e t c. Awareness is the concept-less 'film camera'. Do you want to transcend the content? In that case you are left with a film camera taking in a blank picture. If you want to transcend the the film camera itself, then how can there be awareness? What I am talking about is to remove the noise in the pictures taken by the film camera. There is a lack of clarity of experience when lost in thought. This can be experienced by oneself. And we can also see this in the face and expression of a person staring blankly ahead, totally gone into an inner world of thoughts. It's not the thinking process itself that is the problem. The problem is that thinking is going on all the time, and that awareness, the film camera, is directed, at least partially, at this thinking. It is not only that - emotions also play a heavy role in the movie of thought. Are no emotions important? Isn't it emotions that makes us human? Yes and no. I would like to make a distinction between emotions and feelings. Emotions are glued to thoughts about past and future. Feelings are free from that sticky connection. When we are aware of thinking and emotions all the time, there can be no clarity of perception. The movie of life will then always be noisy. People will be tense all the time. Extremely tense. A sensed need to protect the thinking process itself will continue. There is no harmony in that kind of thinking, and energy is wasted in this way. One could ask: is this kind of anxious thinking, the protection of a 'my story' - all the time - needed? How can one enjoy the movie of life with the noise and heavy burden of 'my personal problems' hanging over me in every step I take? Is there perhaps another way of living life? For example, is there a way of living life that is free from being concerned and having to think about time? Is there a way of life that is not burdened by the need for personal control. Is there a state of being that is radically free from all that kind of noise? /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > > > > > > > > > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > ******************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has > > > someting > > > > > weird, > > > > > > > > > > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you > > > replyied > > > > > to him. > > > > > > > > > > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. > > > But a > > > > > dark > > > > > > > > > > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > > > > > > Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's called a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete = Sith? Pete is alight with all your love and > attention, > > > > > Odysseus. > > > > > > > > My first encounters were exploratory as you may know. You > > > > > enlarge him > > > > > > > > and expand him as he breathes the scented air of your > > > > > compassion filled > > > > > > > > disses, Odysseus. But try speaking to him directly. > He has a > > > > > great calm > > > > > > > > in him, behind those exteriors presented that are > > > sometimes gruff. > > > > > > > Drink > > > > > > > > him as he is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thinking mind is a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It can be. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders how can thinking be suspended? Can it be suspended? > Can one > > > > > > suspend thought through thinking, self-inquiry or self > > > observation? How > > > > > > can it be done? Can it be done? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > Pardon me for quoting Eckhart Tolle again: " Unfortenately, or > > > > > fortenately, you cannot make yourself stop thinking, unless > presence > > > > > in you is so strong that it makes your thoughts stop. " > > > > > > > > > > Personally I have not experienced the suspension of thought. > However, > > > > > I have experienced deep states of peace where thoughts just > floated. > > > > > My goal is to find that kind of peace as my normal state of > being. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. In my experience the " mind " is a sophisticated mechanism > with no > > > > off button. It is always on as it need be. How it produces > thoughts, > > > and > > > > interprets bodily sensations as feelings of this or that - > grasping, > > > > frustration, upset, anxiety, fear, anger, dread, happiness, peace, > > > love, > > > > ecstasy, oceanic sensations, oneness, etc. seems to be little > > > > understood. If one knew the how of it, one could manage or > unmanage or > > > > maintain it it as one would any sophisticated mechanism. Or so it > > > seems. > > > > The problem has been we can't hold it in our hands to examine > to see > > > how > > > > it works precisely. If it could be managed or unmanaged or > > > maintained in > > > > some way, perhaps one could have whatever thoughts or state or > > > condition > > > > of mind one desired. > > > > > > > > Do you think that this is possible, Anders? > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Thinking itself is the problem. One has to start observing the whole > > > slab of thought/emotion and transcend it. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > That is not what is being asked, Anders. The question was " Is it > > possible to transcend not the whole slab of thought/emotion which are > > products of the mind, but the mind itself? > > > > The whole slab is the bottom. It is mere product. Air. It can be a foul > > exhaust in some cases or beautifully scented and so on, if you will. It > > turns out to be vapors of various types produced by the mind. > > > > I was referring to being out of the mechanism that produces the whole > > slab, the vapors. To be out of mind altogether. This would be several > > steps removed from your starting point of self-observation. Discrete > > thoughts, emotions > the imagined slab > the mind itself > transcending > > mind, outside the mind > outside that. (These are analytics of > > experience and do not represent the experience in any linear or > > prescribed way) > > > > Let me blunt. Observing thoughts, experiencing emotions, self-inquiry, > > self-observation is the beginning point. It is getting off the merry go > > round and asking this and that. That is the beginning work to > recognize > > that we have a mind in the first place and to see what it produces and > > how these products makes life what it has been. Self observation is a > > start as you say. > > > > But self-observation will not lead to transcending the mind. It > leads to > > knowing content without understanding how content is produced nor to be > > outside the mind itself. One grows in knowledge of bits and pieces of > > stuff but there is no transcendence of mind with simple > self-observation. > > > > So, again Anders, do you think that this is possible, to be completely > > out of your mind? I ask you because you use your mind in a certain > > distinctive way that is intriguing. So I want to drink you and other > may > > want to as well in this. > > > > Lewis > > For me mind is awareness + content. The content is thougths, feelings, > emotions, sense perceptions e t c. Awareness is the concept-less 'film > camera'. Do you want to transcend the content? In that case you are > left with a film camera taking in a blank picture. If you want to > transcend the the film camera itself, then how can there be awareness? > > What I am talking about is to remove the noise in the pictures taken > by the film camera. There is a lack of clarity of experience when lost > in thought. This can be experienced by oneself. And we can also see > this in the face and expression of a person staring blankly ahead, > totally gone into an inner world of thoughts. > > It's not the thinking process itself that is the problem. The problem > is that thinking is going on all the time, and that awareness, the > film camera, is directed, at least partially, at this thinking. It is > not only that - emotions also play a heavy role in the movie of > thought. Are no emotions important? Isn't it emotions that makes us > human? Yes and no. I would like to make a distinction between emotions > and feelings. Emotions are glued to thoughts about past and future. > Feelings are free from that sticky connection. > > When we are aware of thinking and emotions all the time, there can be > no clarity of perception. The movie of life will then always be noisy. > People will be tense all the time. Extremely tense. A sensed need to > protect the thinking process itself will continue. There is no harmony > in that kind of thinking, and energy is wasted in this way. One could > ask: is this kind of anxious thinking, the protection of a 'my story' > - all the time - needed? How can one enjoy the movie of life with the > noise and heavy burden of 'my personal problems' hanging over me in > every step I take? > > Is there perhaps another way of living life? For example, is there a > way of living life that is free from being concerned and having to > think about time? Is there a way of life that is not burdened by the > need for personal control. Is there a state of being that is radically > free from all that kind of noise? > > /AL PS. For example, Vernon Howard seemed to have been freed from personal control. http://www.anewlife.org/html/sound_library.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > > > > > > > > > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > ******************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has > > > someting > > > > > weird, > > > > > > > > > > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you > > > replyied > > > > > to him. > > > > > > > > > > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. > > > But a > > > > > dark > > > > > > > > > > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > > > > > > Odysseus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's called a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete = Sith? Pete is alight with all your love and > attention, > > > > > Odysseus. > > > > > > > > My first encounters were exploratory as you may know. You > > > > > enlarge him > > > > > > > > and expand him as he breathes the scented air of your > > > > > compassion filled > > > > > > > > disses, Odysseus. But try speaking to him directly. > He has a > > > > > great calm > > > > > > > > in him, behind those exteriors presented that are > > > sometimes gruff. > > > > > > > Drink > > > > > > > > him as he is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thinking mind is a Sith. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It can be. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders how can thinking be suspended? Can it be suspended? > Can one > > > > > > suspend thought through thinking, self-inquiry or self > > > observation? How > > > > > > can it be done? Can it be done? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > Pardon me for quoting Eckhart Tolle again: " Unfortenately, or > > > > > fortenately, you cannot make yourself stop thinking, unless > presence > > > > > in you is so strong that it makes your thoughts stop. " > > > > > > > > > > Personally I have not experienced the suspension of thought. > However, > > > > > I have experienced deep states of peace where thoughts just > floated. > > > > > My goal is to find that kind of peace as my normal state of > being. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. In my experience the " mind " is a sophisticated mechanism > with no > > > > off button. It is always on as it need be. How it produces > thoughts, > > > and > > > > interprets bodily sensations as feelings of this or that - > grasping, > > > > frustration, upset, anxiety, fear, anger, dread, happiness, peace, > > > love, > > > > ecstasy, oceanic sensations, oneness, etc. seems to be little > > > > understood. If one knew the how of it, one could manage or > unmanage or > > > > maintain it it as one would any sophisticated mechanism. Or so it > > > seems. > > > > The problem has been we can't hold it in our hands to examine > to see > > > how > > > > it works precisely. If it could be managed or unmanaged or > > > maintained in > > > > some way, perhaps one could have whatever thoughts or state or > > > condition > > > > of mind one desired. > > > > > > > > Do you think that this is possible, Anders? > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Thinking itself is the problem. One has to start observing the whole > > > slab of thought/emotion and transcend it. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > That is not what is being asked, Anders. The question was " Is it > > possible to transcend not the whole slab of thought/emotion which are > > products of the mind, but the mind itself? > > > > The whole slab is the bottom. It is mere product. Air. It can be a foul > > exhaust in some cases or beautifully scented and so on, if you will. It > > turns out to be vapors of various types produced by the mind. > > > > I was referring to being out of the mechanism that produces the whole > > slab, the vapors. To be out of mind altogether. This would be several > > steps removed from your starting point of self-observation. Discrete > > thoughts, emotions > the imagined slab > the mind itself > transcending > > mind, outside the mind > outside that. (These are analytics of > > experience and do not represent the experience in any linear or > > prescribed way) > > > > Let me blunt. Observing thoughts, experiencing emotions, self-inquiry, > > self-observation is the beginning point. It is getting off the merry go > > round and asking this and that. That is the beginning work to > recognize > > that we have a mind in the first place and to see what it produces and > > how these products makes life what it has been. Self observation is a > > start as you say. > > > > But self-observation will not lead to transcending the mind. It > leads to > > knowing content without understanding how content is produced nor to be > > outside the mind itself. One grows in knowledge of bits and pieces of > > stuff but there is no transcendence of mind with simple > self-observation. > > > > So, again Anders, do you think that this is possible, to be completely > > out of your mind? I ask you because you use your mind in a certain > > distinctive way that is intriguing. So I want to drink you and other > may > > want to as well in this. > > > > Lewis > > For me mind is awareness + content. The content is thougths, feelings, > emotions, sense perceptions e t c. Awareness is the concept-less 'film > camera'. Do you want to transcend the content? In that case you are > left with a film camera taking in a blank picture. If you want to > transcend the the film camera itself, then how can there be awareness? Easily. We do not have to associate awareness with the concept-less camera. Let the concept-less camera be only that, the mechanism producing on the film certain images. Awareness could be the " camera man, at this stage, which is one level up. So you would have awareness using the camera to take to pictures on the film. It is better to make the mechanism a concept-less video camera-player and the product, videotapes. The videographer is awareness. By doing this you have moved up one level. Now it is possible to see the recorder and its products and that I, awareness, is aiming and shooting the footage through the video camera. I choose what to shoot. But one may experience that there is not as much control over the camera and what is being filmed as desired but this can be adjusted and over come with experience. Then it will be seen how the video camera does its work. You will see the faculties of the mind and the products it produces by what awareness has in attention. > > What I am talking about is to remove the noise in the pictures taken > by the film camera. There is a lack of clarity of experience when lost > in thought. This can be experienced by oneself. And we can also see > this in the face and expression of a person staring blankly ahead, > totally gone into an inner world of thoughts. Yes. Awareness is tied to the camera and it should be free of it. > > It's not the thinking process itself that is the problem. The problem > is that thinking is going on all the time, and that awareness, the > film camera, is directed, at least partially, at this thinking. It is > not only that - emotions also play a heavy role in the movie of > thought. Are no emotions important? Isn't it emotions that makes us > human? Yes and no. I would like to make a distinction between emotions > and feelings. Emotions are glued to thoughts about past and future. > Feelings are free from that sticky connection. This is good topic in itself. What are emotions? What are feelings? How are they the same or different? What is their origin and how are they dealt with? Are there different orders and do they. Are they reduced as one becomes free. Are they increased? And so on? > > When we are aware of thinking and emotions all the time, there can be > no clarity of perception. The movie of life will then always be noisy. > People will be tense all the time. Extremely tense. A sensed need to > protect the thinking process itself will continue. There is no harmony > in that kind of thinking, and energy is wasted in this way. One could > ask: is this kind of anxious thinking, the protection of a 'my story' > - all the time - needed? How can one enjoy the movie of life with the > noise and heavy burden of 'my personal problems' hanging over me in > every step I take? If you understand and experience the model above as a learning device, and it is nothing more than that and should be discarded as soon as it has served its purpose, you will see that you can take the tape out of the video player (this is not as easy as it sounds and it is a gentle natural inner movement). The player will play without a tape but you can still look through the view finder seeing all without taping, without attachment. So the tape will not be blank as it was in your other model. You will see without concept because you have removed the tape. When you put the camera down, there is only awareness. There is no seeing of conventional reality. Then, the three or four other models to go after this. There is also a way to deal well with the video tapes past and present and many other features of the video camera. > > Is there perhaps another way of living life? For example, is there a > way of living life that is free from being concerned and having to > think about time? Is there a way of life that is not burdened by the > need for personal control. Is there a state of being that is radically > free from all that kind of noise? > > /AL There is. Lewis > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > ------ > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >P: Where was your attention in that moment of peace? Was your attention >focussed in any thing in particular? >What is a goal? Isn't a goal more thoughts chasing no thoughts? >What is the 'who' who has the goal? Is that 'who' different from >thoughts? Hello Pete, I would be interested, where was your attention when you read Anders posting and wrote this reply? Was your attention focussed on anything particular? Do you have any goals? Did you ever have a goal, when learning something, when aquiring something etc? How did it feel for you to have a goal? Did you ever reach a goal? How did it feel? How did it feel when you missed a goal? Have you been aware WHO had reached/missed a goal? And now? Who wrote the email above? Did the entity who wrote it have a goal? S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2005 > Hello Pete, > > I would be interested, where was your attention when you read Anders > posting and wrote this reply? Was your attention focussed on anything > particular? > > Do you have any goals? Did you ever have a goal, when learning > something, when aquiring something etc? How did it feel for you to > have a goal? Did you ever reach a goal? How did it feel? How did it > feel when you missed a goal? Have you been aware WHO had > reached/missed a goal? And now? Who wrote the email above? Did the > entity who wrote it have a goal? Mein lieber Scholli Pete needs to be smoked like cuban cigar. If you eat him, you will get a direful diarrea if not, an intoxication. Those Latinos, like Pete and Odysseus, have no respect for anything. Unstructered as they are! No sense for responsability! It's time to demonstrate seriousity! Who else could that do, than a genuine german philosopher and sage? Never loosen grip! The " Endziel " is near! Jawohl! Kip Almazy P.S. Don't forget to laugh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > .... > > > > > > > > Thinking itself is the problem. One has to start observing the whole > > > > slab of thought/emotion and transcend it. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > That is not what is being asked, Anders. The question was " Is it > > > possible to transcend not the whole slab of thought/emotion which are > > > products of the mind, but the mind itself? > > > > > > The whole slab is the bottom. It is mere product. Air. It can be a foul > > > exhaust in some cases or beautifully scented and so on, if you will. It > > > turns out to be vapors of various types produced by the mind. > > > > > > I was referring to being out of the mechanism that produces the whole > > > slab, the vapors. To be out of mind altogether. This would be several > > > steps removed from your starting point of self-observation. Discrete > > > thoughts, emotions > the imagined slab > the mind itself > transcending > > > mind, outside the mind > outside that. (These are analytics of > > > experience and do not represent the experience in any linear or > > > prescribed way) > > > > > > Let me blunt. Observing thoughts, experiencing emotions, self-inquiry, > > > self-observation is the beginning point. It is getting off the merry go > > > round and asking this and that. That is the beginning work to > > recognize > > > that we have a mind in the first place and to see what it produces and > > > how these products makes life what it has been. Self observation is a > > > start as you say. > > > > > > But self-observation will not lead to transcending the mind. It > > leads to > > > knowing content without understanding how content is produced nor to be > > > outside the mind itself. One grows in knowledge of bits and pieces of > > > stuff but there is no transcendence of mind with simple > > self-observation. > > > > > > So, again Anders, do you think that this is possible, to be completely > > > out of your mind? I ask you because you use your mind in a certain > > > distinctive way that is intriguing. So I want to drink you and other > > may > > > want to as well in this. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > For me mind is awareness + content. The content is thougths, feelings, > > emotions, sense perceptions e t c. Awareness is the concept-less 'film > > camera'. Do you want to transcend the content? In that case you are > > left with a film camera taking in a blank picture. If you want to > > transcend the the film camera itself, then how can there be awareness? > > > Easily. We do not have to associate awareness with the concept-less > camera. Let the concept-less camera be only that, the mechanism > producing on the film certain images. Awareness could be the " camera > man, at this stage, which is one level up. So you would have awareness > using the camera to take to pictures on the film. > > It is better to make the mechanism a concept-less video camera-player > and the product, videotapes. The videographer is awareness. By doing > this you have moved up one level. Now it is possible to see the recorder > and its products and that I, awareness, is aiming and shooting the > footage through the video camera. I choose what to shoot. But one may > experience that there is not as much control over the camera and what is > being filmed as desired but this can be adjusted and over come with > experience. Then it will be seen how the video camera does its work. You > will see the faculties of the mind and the products it produces by what > awareness has in attention. I was using the metaphore of a film camera to illustrate that 'part' of us that is aware, the 'seer', the awake observer that is aware of content but cannot be said to be content itself. We can call it pure awareness, or pure observation. No control. Just awareness. If we use the metaphore of a videographer we become entangled in the many flavours of control. Pure awareness is control-less, or all-control, depending of how we look at it. But no partial control. No choice mechanism directing the focus of awareness. Partial control is a part of content. > > > > > > What I am talking about is to remove the noise in the pictures taken > > by the film camera. There is a lack of clarity of experience when lost > > in thought. This can be experienced by oneself. And we can also see > > this in the face and expression of a person staring blankly ahead, > > totally gone into an inner world of thoughts. > > > Yes. Awareness is tied to the camera and it should be free of it. > > > > > > It's not the thinking process itself that is the problem. The problem > > is that thinking is going on all the time, and that awareness, the > > film camera, is directed, at least partially, at this thinking. It is > > not only that - emotions also play a heavy role in the movie of > > thought. Are no emotions important? Isn't it emotions that makes us > > human? Yes and no. I would like to make a distinction between emotions > > and feelings. Emotions are glued to thoughts about past and future. > > Feelings are free from that sticky connection. > > > > This is good topic in itself. What are emotions? What are feelings? How > are they the same or different? What is their origin and how are they > dealt with? Are there different orders and do they. Are they reduced as > one becomes free. Are they increased? And so on? Emotions have to be transformed into feelings by an increase and deepening of awareness. Emotions, as I see it, always contain a state of conflict, which is the base of fear. All emotions have fear in them somewhere. Fear is the root-emotion. Feelings are fearless. > > > > > > > When we are aware of thinking and emotions all the time, there can be > > no clarity of perception. The movie of life will then always be noisy. > > People will be tense all the time. Extremely tense. A sensed need to > > protect the thinking process itself will continue. There is no harmony > > in that kind of thinking, and energy is wasted in this way. One could > > ask: is this kind of anxious thinking, the protection of a 'my story' > > - all the time - needed? How can one enjoy the movie of life with the > > noise and heavy burden of 'my personal problems' hanging over me in > > every step I take? > > > > If you understand and experience the model above as a learning device, > and it is nothing more than that and should be discarded as soon as it > has served its purpose, you will see that you can take the tape out of > the video player (this is not as easy as it sounds and it is a gentle > natural inner movement). The player will play without a tape but you > can still look through the view finder seeing all without taping, > without attachment. So the tape will not be blank as it was in your > other model. You will see without concept because you have removed the > tape. When you put the camera down, there is only awareness. There is no > seeing of conventional reality. Then, the three or four other models to > go after this. There is also a way to deal well with the video tapes > past and present and many other features of the video camera. A video tape is a good analogy of the memory creating operation in a human being. Partial control is the functioning of using these tapes to perpetuate fragmented thinking, which is a continuation of that same partial control. > > > > > > Is there perhaps another way of living life? For example, is there a > > way of living life that is free from being concerned and having to > > think about time? Is there a way of life that is not burdened by the > > need for personal control. Is there a state of being that is radically > > free from all that kind of noise? > > > > /AL > > There is. > > Lewis > J. Krishnamurti talked about freedom from the known, and freedom from authority. The known and authority are the video tapes. We often focus more on the video tapes than on reality in the living moment. The thinking mind uses the video tapes and edits them into a new movie called the future. That is not the real future - it is only a new configuration of a limited past (the video tapes). That's why partial control will never operate in a harmonious, complete and frictionless way. We cannot use a limited set of old video tapes and believe we can control the future in that way without conflict. Power, as often defined in human society, is often power over something. That is incomplete control leading to conflict. And what do we see in today's society? Conflict! /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Thinking itself is the problem. One has to start observing > the whole > > > > > slab of thought/emotion and transcend it. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not what is being asked, Anders. The question was " Is it > > > > possible to transcend not the whole slab of thought/emotion > which are > > > > products of the mind, but the mind itself? > > > > > > > > The whole slab is the bottom. It is mere product. Air. It can > be a foul > > > > exhaust in some cases or beautifully scented and so on, if you > will. It > > > > turns out to be vapors of various types produced by the mind. > > > > > > > > I was referring to being out of the mechanism that produces the > whole > > > > slab, the vapors. To be out of mind altogether. This would be > several > > > > steps removed from your starting point of self-observation. > Discrete > > > > thoughts, emotions > the imagined slab > the mind itself > > transcending > > > > mind, outside the mind > outside that. (These are analytics of > > > > experience and do not represent the experience in any linear or > > > > prescribed way) > > > > > > > > Let me blunt. Observing thoughts, experiencing emotions, > self-inquiry, > > > > self-observation is the beginning point. It is getting off the > merry go > > > > round and asking this and that. That is the beginning work to > > > recognize > > > > that we have a mind in the first place and to see what it > produces and > > > > how these products makes life what it has been. Self > observation is a > > > > start as you say. > > > > > > > > But self-observation will not lead to transcending the mind. It > > > leads to > > > > knowing content without understanding how content is produced > nor to be > > > > outside the mind itself. One grows in knowledge of bits and > pieces of > > > > stuff but there is no transcendence of mind with simple > > > self-observation. > > > > > > > > So, again Anders, do you think that this is possible, to be > completely > > > > out of your mind? I ask you because you use your mind in a certain > > > > distinctive way that is intriguing. So I want to drink you and > other > > > may > > > > want to as well in this. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > For me mind is awareness + content. The content is thougths, feelings, > > > emotions, sense perceptions e t c. Awareness is the concept-less 'film > > > camera'. Do you want to transcend the content? In that case you are > > > left with a film camera taking in a blank picture. If you want to > > > transcend the the film camera itself, then how can there be awareness? > > > > > > Easily. We do not have to associate awareness with the concept-less > > camera. Let the concept-less camera be only that, the mechanism > > producing on the film certain images. Awareness could be the " camera > > man, at this stage, which is one level up. So you would have awareness > > using the camera to take to pictures on the film. > > > > It is better to make the mechanism a concept-less video camera-player > > and the product, videotapes. The videographer is awareness. By doing > > this you have moved up one level. Now it is possible to see the > recorder > > and its products and that I, awareness, is aiming and shooting the > > footage through the video camera. I choose what to shoot. But one may > > experience that there is not as much control over the camera and > what is > > being filmed as desired but this can be adjusted and over come with > > experience. Then it will be seen how the video camera does its work. > You > > will see the faculties of the mind and the products it produces by what > > awareness has in attention. > > I was using the metaphore of a film camera to illustrate that 'part' > of us that is aware, the 'seer', the awake observer that is aware of > content but cannot be said to be content itself. We can call it pure > awareness, or pure observation. No control. Just awareness. If we use > the metaphore of a videographer we become entangled in the many > flavours of control. Pure awareness is control-less, or all-control, > depending of how we look at it. But no partial control. No choice > mechanism directing the focus of awareness. Partial control is a part > of content. Yes. But the metaphor can be seen differently and experienced differently as one is. For example, there is no need for control at all. The inner movements and positioning of the mind in awareness are subtle gentle and need not be partial or all and nonew whatever you mean by that. There is no need for the metaphor if one knows these movements and is able to flow with them as they naturally occur. Barring that, there is thought enslavement. Conceptions of the mind are limiting. Assumptions about the mind creates blockage to the natural movements. To be rid of conceptualizations is utterly simple if one experiences how it occurs. Not knowing these movements from experience and through " experiments " (diverse life experiences) prolong the continuation of the appearances concept, thought, emotions and feelings as commonly experienced. > > > > > > What I am talking about is to remove the noise in the pictures taken > > > by the film camera. There is a lack of clarity of experience when lost > > > in thought. This can be experienced by oneself. And we can also see > > > this in the face and expression of a person staring blankly ahead, > > > totally gone into an inner world of thoughts. > > > > > > Yes. Awareness is tied to the camera and it should be free of it. > > > > > > > > > > It's not the thinking process itself that is the problem. The problem > > > is that thinking is going on all the time, and that awareness, the > > > film camera, is directed, at least partially, at this thinking. It is > > > not only that - emotions also play a heavy role in the movie of > > > thought. Are no emotions important? Isn't it emotions that makes us > > > human? Yes and no. I would like to make a distinction between emotions > > > and feelings. Emotions are glued to thoughts about past and future. > > > Feelings are free from that sticky connection. > > > > > > > > This is good topic in itself. What are emotions? What are feelings? How > > are they the same or different? What is their origin and how are they > > dealt with? Are there different orders and do they. Are they reduced as > > one becomes free. Are they increased? And so on? > > Emotions have to be transformed into feelings by an increase and > deepening of awareness. Emotions, as I see it, always contain a state > of conflict, which is the base of fear. All emotions have fear in them > somewhere. Fear is the root-emotion. Feelings are fearless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we are aware of thinking and emotions all the time, there can be > > > no clarity of perception. The movie of life will then always be noisy. > > > People will be tense all the time. Extremely tense. A sensed need to > > > protect the thinking process itself will continue. There is no harmony > > > in that kind of thinking, and energy is wasted in this way. One could > > > ask: is this kind of anxious thinking, the protection of a 'my story' > > > - all the time - needed? How can one enjoy the movie of life with the > > > noise and heavy burden of 'my personal problems' hanging over me in > > > every step I take? > > > > > > > > If you understand and experience the model above as a learning device, > > and it is nothing more than that and should be discarded as soon as it > > has served its purpose, you will see that you can take the tape out of > > the video player (this is not as easy as it sounds and it is a gentle > > natural inner movement). The player will play without a tape but you > > can still look through the view finder seeing all without taping, > > without attachment. So the tape will not be blank as it was in your > > other model. You will see without concept because you have removed the > > tape. When you put the camera down, there is only awareness. There > is no > > seeing of conventional reality. Then, the three or four other models to > > go after this. There is also a way to deal well with the video tapes > > past and present and many other features of the video camera. > > A video tape is a good analogy of the memory creating operation in a > human being. Partial control is the functioning of using these tapes > to perpetuate fragmented thinking, which is a continuation of that > same partial control. > > > > > > > > > > > Is there perhaps another way of living life? For example, is there a > > > way of living life that is free from being concerned and having to > > > think about time? Is there a way of life that is not burdened by the > > > need for personal control. Is there a state of being that is radically > > > free from all that kind of noise? > > > > > > /AL > > > > There is. > > > > Lewis > > > > J. Krishnamurti talked about freedom from the known, and freedom from > authority. The known and authority are the video tapes. We often focus > more on the video tapes than on reality in the living moment. > > The thinking mind uses the video tapes and edits them into a new movie > called the future. That is not the real future - it is only a new > configuration of a limited past (the video tapes). That's why partial > control will never operate in a harmonious, complete and frictionless > way. We cannot use a limited set of old video tapes and believe we can > control the future in that way without conflict. > > Power, as often defined in human society, is often power over > something. That is incomplete control leading to conflict. And what do > we see in today's society? Conflict! > > /AL There is no need for control. Understanding through experience, not concept how it is, those movements and all flows naturally to what is. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thinking itself is the problem. One has to start observing > > the whole > > > > > > slab of thought/emotion and transcend it. > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not what is being asked, Anders. The question was " Is it > > > > > possible to transcend not the whole slab of thought/emotion > > which are > > > > > products of the mind, but the mind itself? > > > > > > > > > > The whole slab is the bottom. It is mere product. Air. It can > > be a foul > > > > > exhaust in some cases or beautifully scented and so on, if you > > will. It > > > > > turns out to be vapors of various types produced by the mind. > > > > > > > > > > I was referring to being out of the mechanism that produces the > > whole > > > > > slab, the vapors. To be out of mind altogether. This would be > > several > > > > > steps removed from your starting point of self-observation. > > Discrete > > > > > thoughts, emotions > the imagined slab > the mind itself > > > transcending > > > > > mind, outside the mind > outside that. (These are analytics of > > > > > experience and do not represent the experience in any linear or > > > > > prescribed way) > > > > > > > > > > Let me blunt. Observing thoughts, experiencing emotions, > > self-inquiry, > > > > > self-observation is the beginning point. It is getting off the > > merry go > > > > > round and asking this and that. That is the beginning work to > > > > recognize > > > > > that we have a mind in the first place and to see what it > > produces and > > > > > how these products makes life what it has been. Self > > observation is a > > > > > start as you say. > > > > > > > > > > But self-observation will not lead to transcending the mind. It > > > > leads to > > > > > knowing content without understanding how content is produced > > nor to be > > > > > outside the mind itself. One grows in knowledge of bits and > > pieces of > > > > > stuff but there is no transcendence of mind with simple > > > > self-observation. > > > > > > > > > > So, again Anders, do you think that this is possible, to be > > completely > > > > > out of your mind? I ask you because you use your mind in a certain > > > > > distinctive way that is intriguing. So I want to drink you and > > other > > > > may > > > > > want to as well in this. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > For me mind is awareness + content. The content is thougths, feelings, > > > > emotions, sense perceptions e t c. Awareness is the concept-less 'film > > > > camera'. Do you want to transcend the content? In that case you are > > > > left with a film camera taking in a blank picture. If you want to > > > > transcend the the film camera itself, then how can there be awareness? > > > > > > > > > Easily. We do not have to associate awareness with the concept-less > > > camera. Let the concept-less camera be only that, the mechanism > > > producing on the film certain images. Awareness could be the " camera > > > man, at this stage, which is one level up. So you would have awareness > > > using the camera to take to pictures on the film. > > > > > > It is better to make the mechanism a concept-less video camera-player > > > and the product, videotapes. The videographer is awareness. By doing > > > this you have moved up one level. Now it is possible to see the > > recorder > > > and its products and that I, awareness, is aiming and shooting the > > > footage through the video camera. I choose what to shoot. But one may > > > experience that there is not as much control over the camera and > > what is > > > being filmed as desired but this can be adjusted and over come with > > > experience. Then it will be seen how the video camera does its work. > > You > > > will see the faculties of the mind and the products it produces by what > > > awareness has in attention. > > > > I was using the metaphore of a film camera to illustrate that 'part' > > of us that is aware, the 'seer', the awake observer that is aware of > > content but cannot be said to be content itself. We can call it pure > > awareness, or pure observation. No control. Just awareness. If we use > > the metaphore of a videographer we become entangled in the many > > flavours of control. Pure awareness is control-less, or all-control, > > depending of how we look at it. But no partial control. No choice > > mechanism directing the focus of awareness. Partial control is a part > > of content. > > > Yes. But the metaphor can be seen differently and experienced > differently as one is. For example, there is no need for control at all. > The inner movements and positioning of the mind in awareness are > subtle gentle and need not be partial or all and nonew whatever you mean > by that. > > There is no need for the metaphor if one knows these movements and is > able to flow with them as they naturally occur. Barring that, there is > thought enslavement. Conceptions of the mind are limiting. Assumptions > about the mind creates blockage to the natural movements. To be rid of > conceptualizations is utterly simple if one experiences how it occurs. > Not knowing these movements from experience and through " experiments " > (diverse life experiences) prolong the continuation of the appearances > concept, thought, emotions and feelings as commonly experienced. > > > > > > > > > What I am talking about is to remove the noise in the pictures taken > > > > by the film camera. There is a lack of clarity of experience when lost > > > > in thought. This can be experienced by oneself. And we can also see > > > > this in the face and expression of a person staring blankly ahead, > > > > totally gone into an inner world of thoughts. > > > > > > > > > Yes. Awareness is tied to the camera and it should be free of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not the thinking process itself that is the problem. The problem > > > > is that thinking is going on all the time, and that awareness, the > > > > film camera, is directed, at least partially, at this thinking. It is > > > > not only that - emotions also play a heavy role in the movie of > > > > thought. Are no emotions important? Isn't it emotions that makes us > > > > human? Yes and no. I would like to make a distinction between emotions > > > > and feelings. Emotions are glued to thoughts about past and future. > > > > Feelings are free from that sticky connection. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is good topic in itself. What are emotions? What are feelings? How > > > are they the same or different? What is their origin and how are they > > > dealt with? Are there different orders and do they. Are they reduced as > > > one becomes free. Are they increased? And so on? > > > > Emotions have to be transformed into feelings by an increase and > > deepening of awareness. Emotions, as I see it, always contain a state > > of conflict, which is the base of fear. All emotions have fear in them > > somewhere. Fear is the root-emotion. Feelings are fearless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we are aware of thinking and emotions all the time, there can be > > > > no clarity of perception. The movie of life will then always be noisy. > > > > People will be tense all the time. Extremely tense. A sensed need to > > > > protect the thinking process itself will continue. There is no harmony > > > > in that kind of thinking, and energy is wasted in this way. One could > > > > ask: is this kind of anxious thinking, the protection of a 'my story' > > > > - all the time - needed? How can one enjoy the movie of life with the > > > > noise and heavy burden of 'my personal problems' hanging over me in > > > > every step I take? > > > > > > > > > > > > If you understand and experience the model above as a learning device, > > > and it is nothing more than that and should be discarded as soon as it > > > has served its purpose, you will see that you can take the tape out of > > > the video player (this is not as easy as it sounds and it is a gentle > > > natural inner movement). The player will play without a tape but you > > > can still look through the view finder seeing all without taping, > > > without attachment. So the tape will not be blank as it was in your > > > other model. You will see without concept because you have removed the > > > tape. When you put the camera down, there is only awareness. There > > is no > > > seeing of conventional reality. Then, the three or four other models to > > > go after this. There is also a way to deal well with the video tapes > > > past and present and many other features of the video camera. > > > > A video tape is a good analogy of the memory creating operation in a > > human being. Partial control is the functioning of using these tapes > > to perpetuate fragmented thinking, which is a continuation of that > > same partial control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there perhaps another way of living life? For example, is there a > > > > way of living life that is free from being concerned and having to > > > > think about time? Is there a way of life that is not burdened by the > > > > need for personal control. Is there a state of being that is radically > > > > free from all that kind of noise? > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > There is. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > J. Krishnamurti talked about freedom from the known, and freedom from > > authority. The known and authority are the video tapes. We often focus > > more on the video tapes than on reality in the living moment. > > > > The thinking mind uses the video tapes and edits them into a new movie > > called the future. That is not the real future - it is only a new > > configuration of a limited past (the video tapes). That's why partial > > control will never operate in a harmonious, complete and frictionless > > way. We cannot use a limited set of old video tapes and believe we can > > control the future in that way without conflict. > > > > Power, as often defined in human society, is often power over > > something. That is incomplete control leading to conflict. And what do > > we see in today's society? Conflict! > > > > /AL > > > There is no need for control. Understanding through experience, not > concept how it is, those movements and all flows naturally to what is. > > Lewis The more I observe the control in me, the more horrible it gets. I understand why people are afraid. I understand why I myself am afraid. My hope is that this understanding will make me peaceful. When I am peaceful, the world will be peaceful. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2005 In a message dated 1/15/05 2:06:16 AM, kipalmazy writes: > Mein lieber Scholli > > Kip:Pete needs to be smoked like cuban cigar. If you eat him, you will > >get a direful diarrea if not, an intoxication. Those Latinos, like > Pete and Odysseus, have no respect for anything. Unstructered as > they are! No sense for responsability! It's time to demonstrate > seriousity! Who else could that do, than a genuine german > >philosopher and sage? > P: LOL. you are on rare form, Kip. Let your posting of Buddha's position on teaching be the answer to all pretenders to that job: Section XXV. The Illusion of Self Subhuti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathagata cherishes the idea: I must liberate all living beings. Allow no such thought, Subhuti. Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be liberated by the Tathagata. If there were living beings for the Tathagata to liberate, He would partake in the idea of selfhood, personality entity, and separate individuality. Subhuti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the Tathagata declares that self is not different from no-self. Subhuti, those whom the Tathagata referred to as " common people " are not really common people; such is merely a name. - diamond cutter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 16, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thinking itself is the problem. One has to start observing > > > the whole > > > > > > > slab of thought/emotion and transcend it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not what is being asked, Anders. The question was > " Is it > > > > > > possible to transcend not the whole slab of thought/emotion > > > which are > > > > > > products of the mind, but the mind itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole slab is the bottom. It is mere product. Air. It can > > > be a foul > > > > > > exhaust in some cases or beautifully scented and so on, if you > > > will. It > > > > > > turns out to be vapors of various types produced by the mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was referring to being out of the mechanism that > produces the > > > whole > > > > > > slab, the vapors. To be out of mind altogether. This would be > > > several > > > > > > steps removed from your starting point of self-observation. > > > Discrete > > > > > > thoughts, emotions > the imagined slab > the mind itself > > > > transcending > > > > > > mind, outside the mind > outside that. (These are analytics of > > > > > > experience and do not represent the experience in any > linear or > > > > > > prescribed way) > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me blunt. Observing thoughts, experiencing emotions, > > > self-inquiry, > > > > > > self-observation is the beginning point. It is getting off the > > > merry go > > > > > > round and asking this and that. That is the beginning work to > > > > > recognize > > > > > > that we have a mind in the first place and to see what it > > > produces and > > > > > > how these products makes life what it has been. Self > > > observation is a > > > > > > start as you say. > > > > > > > > > > > > But self-observation will not lead to transcending the > mind. It > > > > > leads to > > > > > > knowing content without understanding how content is produced > > > nor to be > > > > > > outside the mind itself. One grows in knowledge of bits and > > > pieces of > > > > > > stuff but there is no transcendence of mind with simple > > > > > self-observation. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, again Anders, do you think that this is possible, to be > > > completely > > > > > > out of your mind? I ask you because you use your mind in a > certain > > > > > > distinctive way that is intriguing. So I want to drink you and > > > other > > > > > may > > > > > > want to as well in this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > For me mind is awareness + content. The content is thougths, > feelings, > > > > > emotions, sense perceptions e t c. Awareness is the > concept-less 'film > > > > > camera'. Do you want to transcend the content? In that case > you are > > > > > left with a film camera taking in a blank picture. If you want to > > > > > transcend the the film camera itself, then how can there be > awareness? > > > > > > > > > > > > Easily. We do not have to associate awareness with the concept-less > > > > camera. Let the concept-less camera be only that, the mechanism > > > > producing on the film certain images. Awareness could be the > " camera > > > > man, at this stage, which is one level up. So you would have > awareness > > > > using the camera to take to pictures on the film. > > > > > > > > It is better to make the mechanism a concept-less video > camera-player > > > > and the product, videotapes. The videographer is awareness. By > doing > > > > this you have moved up one level. Now it is possible to see the > > > recorder > > > > and its products and that I, awareness, is aiming and shooting the > > > > footage through the video camera. I choose what to shoot. But > one may > > > > experience that there is not as much control over the camera and > > > what is > > > > being filmed as desired but this can be adjusted and over come with > > > > experience. Then it will be seen how the video camera does its > work. > > > You > > > > will see the faculties of the mind and the products it produces > by what > > > > awareness has in attention. > > > > > > I was using the metaphore of a film camera to illustrate that 'part' > > > of us that is aware, the 'seer', the awake observer that is aware of > > > content but cannot be said to be content itself. We can call it pure > > > awareness, or pure observation. No control. Just awareness. If we use > > > the metaphore of a videographer we become entangled in the many > > > flavours of control. Pure awareness is control-less, or all-control, > > > depending of how we look at it. But no partial control. No choice > > > mechanism directing the focus of awareness. Partial control is a part > > > of content. > > > > > > Yes. But the metaphor can be seen differently and experienced > > differently as one is. For example, there is no need for control at > all. > > The inner movements and positioning of the mind in awareness are > > subtle gentle and need not be partial or all and nonew whatever you > mean > > by that. > > > > There is no need for the metaphor if one knows these movements and is > > able to flow with them as they naturally occur. Barring that, there is > > thought enslavement. Conceptions of the mind are limiting. Assumptions > > about the mind creates blockage to the natural movements. To be rid of > > conceptualizations is utterly simple if one experiences how it occurs. > > Not knowing these movements from experience and through " experiments " > > (diverse life experiences) prolong the continuation of the appearances > > concept, thought, emotions and feelings as commonly experienced. > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am talking about is to remove the noise in the > pictures taken > > > > > by the film camera. There is a lack of clarity of experience > when lost > > > > > in thought. This can be experienced by oneself. And we can > also see > > > > > this in the face and expression of a person staring blankly > ahead, > > > > > totally gone into an inner world of thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Awareness is tied to the camera and it should be free of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not the thinking process itself that is the problem. The > problem > > > > > is that thinking is going on all the time, and that > awareness, the > > > > > film camera, is directed, at least partially, at this > thinking. It is > > > > > not only that - emotions also play a heavy role in the movie of > > > > > thought. Are no emotions important? Isn't it emotions that > makes us > > > > > human? Yes and no. I would like to make a distinction between > emotions > > > > > and feelings. Emotions are glued to thoughts about past and > future. > > > > > Feelings are free from that sticky connection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is good topic in itself. What are emotions? What are > feelings? How > > > > are they the same or different? What is their origin and how > are they > > > > dealt with? Are there different orders and do they. Are they > reduced as > > > > one becomes free. Are they increased? And so on? > > > > > > Emotions have to be transformed into feelings by an increase and > > > deepening of awareness. Emotions, as I see it, always contain a state > > > of conflict, which is the base of fear. All emotions have fear in them > > > somewhere. Fear is the root-emotion. Feelings are fearless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we are aware of thinking and emotions all the time, > there can be > > > > > no clarity of perception. The movie of life will then always > be noisy. > > > > > People will be tense all the time. Extremely tense. A sensed > need to > > > > > protect the thinking process itself will continue. There is > no harmony > > > > > in that kind of thinking, and energy is wasted in this way. > One could > > > > > ask: is this kind of anxious thinking, the protection of a > 'my story' > > > > > - all the time - needed? How can one enjoy the movie of life > with the > > > > > noise and heavy burden of 'my personal problems' hanging over > me in > > > > > every step I take? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you understand and experience the model above as a learning > device, > > > > and it is nothing more than that and should be discarded as > soon as it > > > > has served its purpose, you will see that you can take the tape > out of > > > > the video player (this is not as easy as it sounds and it is a > gentle > > > > natural inner movement). The player will play without a tape > but you > > > > can still look through the view finder seeing all without taping, > > > > without attachment. So the tape will not be blank as it was in your > > > > other model. You will see without concept because you have > removed the > > > > tape. When you put the camera down, there is only awareness. There > > > is no > > > > seeing of conventional reality. Then, the three or four other > models to > > > > go after this. There is also a way to deal well with the video > tapes > > > > past and present and many other features of the video camera. > > > > > > A video tape is a good analogy of the memory creating operation in a > > > human being. Partial control is the functioning of using these tapes > > > to perpetuate fragmented thinking, which is a continuation of that > > > same partial control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there perhaps another way of living life? For example, is > there a > > > > > way of living life that is free from being concerned and > having to > > > > > think about time? Is there a way of life that is not burdened > by the > > > > > need for personal control. Is there a state of being that is > radically > > > > > free from all that kind of noise? > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > There is. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > J. Krishnamurti talked about freedom from the known, and freedom from > > > authority. The known and authority are the video tapes. We often focus > > > more on the video tapes than on reality in the living moment. > > > > > > The thinking mind uses the video tapes and edits them into a new movie > > > called the future. That is not the real future - it is only a new > > > configuration of a limited past (the video tapes). That's why partial > > > control will never operate in a harmonious, complete and frictionless > > > way. We cannot use a limited set of old video tapes and believe we can > > > control the future in that way without conflict. > > > > > > Power, as often defined in human society, is often power over > > > something. That is incomplete control leading to conflict. And what do > > > we see in today's society? Conflict! > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > There is no need for control. Understanding through experience, not > > concept how it is, those movements and all flows naturally to what is. > > > > Lewis > > The more I observe the control in me, the more horrible it gets. I > understand why people are afraid. I understand why I myself am afraid. > My hope is that this understanding will make me peaceful. When I am > peaceful, the world will be peaceful. > > /AL Anders, I experience regularly no thought or thinking with thoughts and concepts. I am able to have thought and not to have thought as is needed. The experience is something like this: all of me is moving always. There is an interior sense in the body that is directly connected to the five senses that directly enters the interior so that what ever is seen stimulates interior movements and sensations; very subtle movements and sensations to not subtle movements and sensations depending on what is seen and experienced. There is no thought, just these unknown, unmarked movements and sensations. That is my daily experience. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > Mein lieber Scholli > > Pete needs to be smoked like cuban cigar. If you eat him, you will > get a direful diarrea if not, an intoxication. Those Latinos, like > Pete and Odysseus, have no respect for anything. Unstructered as > they are! No sense for responsability! It's time to demonstrate > seriousity! Who else could that do, than a genuine german > philosopher and sage? > > Never loosen grip! The " Endziel " is near! > > Jawohl! > Kip Almazy > > > P.S. Don't forget to laugh! Haha, thank you for those friendly remarks. Part of them is truly an insult towards cuban cigars. Hmmmm... pufff...! But it does not matter. I solely came here to teach Pete how to drink, because as a drinker he is still at the stage of a suckling. Greetings Nasrudin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > .... > > Anders, I experience regularly no thought or thinking with thoughts and > concepts. I am able to have thought and not to have thought as is > needed. The experience is something like this: all of me is moving > always. There is an interior sense in the body that is directly > connected to the five senses that directly enters the interior so that > what ever is seen stimulates interior movements and sensations; very > subtle movements and sensations to not subtle movements and sensations > depending on what is seen and experienced. There is no thought, just > these unknown, unmarked movements and sensations. That is my daily > experience. > > Lewis That sounds like an interesting state of being. To now and then be free from compulsive and ever-ongoing thinking. I live with a constant feeling of anxiety, and it has to do with my ideas about the future. Which in turn is related to my sensed need to be in control of my life. I can feel that this attempt of control is a state of conflict. The " me " is stuggling with its own ideas about the future, which leads to an endless stream of problematic thinking. My idea of spirituality is that by melting the separate me into the ocean of oneness there will be peace. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 16, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > Anders, I experience regularly no thought or thinking with thoughts and > > concepts. I am able to have thought and not to have thought as is > > needed. The experience is something like this: all of me is moving > > always. There is an interior sense in the body that is directly > > connected to the five senses that directly enters the interior so that > > what ever is seen stimulates interior movements and sensations; very > > subtle movements and sensations to not subtle movements and sensations > > depending on what is seen and experienced. There is no thought, just > > these unknown, unmarked movements and sensations. That is my daily > > experience. > > > > Lewis > > That sounds like an interesting state of being. To now and then be > free from compulsive and ever-ongoing thinking. I live with a constant > feeling of anxiety, and it has to do with my ideas about the future. > Which in turn is related to my sensed need to be in control of my > life. I can feel that this attempt of control is a state of conflict. > The " me " is stuggling with its own ideas about the future, which leads > to an endless stream of problematic thinking. > > My idea of spirituality is that by melting the separate me into the > ocean of oneness there will be peace. > > /AL That idea will bring you that, if you can manage to construct it, manage it, and maintain it properly with effort, but experience shows that that management and maintenance, may, may fail and you will fall out of it and into something else or a simple regression to confusion. The managed production of desired states can be achieved but being artificial they are subject to disintegration. Some people manage these states and reproduce them until the day they pass. It is possible. It is also possible for the management and maintenance to fail. That possibility is one of many sources of fear and anxiety as it is commonly experienced. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
