Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 Maybe the thinking process is nothing but a view of what is happening automatically. We are not aware of how all cells in our body communicate with each other. Probably we are not aware of this inter-cellular communication because we don't need to. Instead our awareness is focusing on higher functioning such as thinking, emotions and sense perceptions. To us, the advanced workings of the cells seem automatic, instinctive. Maybe we could take yet another step on the hierarchical ladder of awareness so that the thinking process becomes 'hidden' from us (pushed below our level of awareness) in the same way communication between cells in our body is hidden from us (pushed below our level of awareness). It could be that the thinking process is as automatic/instinctive as the workings of the cells, only that we have a focus of awareness put on the thinking process. This means that spiritual liberation, then, is nothing but the focus of awareness rising above the level of thinking. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 Nisargadatta said that is by believing that we are the Supreme Reality and by self-observation that we are the witness " I am " when we see the forms and images within mind " consciousness of mind, objective consciousness " , and when we no see, no feel, only the sense " existing " we are " That " the awareness. Is this way that I live my life, without thoughts and no problems, because I see all mind/body like a machine automatically. Namastê Nirgunananda - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Wednesday, January 12, 2005 3:51 PM The thinking process Maybe the thinking process is nothing but a view of what is happening automatically. We are not aware of how all cells in our body communicate with each other. Probably we are not aware of this inter-cellular communication because we don't need to. Instead our awareness is focusing on higher functioning such as thinking, emotions and sense perceptions. To us, the advanced workings of the cells seem automatic, instinctive. Maybe we could take yet another step on the hierarchical ladder of awareness so that the thinking process becomes 'hidden' from us (pushed below our level of awareness) in the same way communication between cells in our body is hidden from us (pushed below our level of awareness). It could be that the thinking process is as automatic/instinctive as the workings of the cells, only that we have a focus of awareness put on the thinking process. This means that spiritual liberation, then, is nothing but the focus of awareness rising above the level of thinking. /AL ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > Nisargadatta said that is by believing that we are the Supreme Reality and by self-observation that we are the witness " I am " when we see the forms and images within mind " consciousness of mind, objective consciousness " , and when we no see, no feel, only the sense " existing " we are " That " the awareness. Is this way that I live my life, without thoughts and no problems, because I see all mind/body like a machine automatically. > > Namastê > Nirgunananda Yes, the Supreme Reality is what makes the world of form happen. It is vast intelligence in operation. The thinking process is a small part of that intelligence, a limited perspective of it; one could almost say that the thinking process is noise, discord, an incomplete and fragmented view of the total harmonious flow of life. The same with the awareness of our body. When there is discord, then parts of the body are tense, stiff, painful, aching or numb. When there is harmony in the body there is a beautiful feeling like warm honey floating within which is the true nectar of peace. Deep peace comes when the thinking mind also operates in harmony with lightness and ease. And when emotions - which I understand is a word with a root meaning 'disturbance' - become light, clear and soothing. This what I have written above is not something I know, it is a mental image of liberation, not true liberation. Namaste /AL > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, January 12, 2005 3:51 PM > The thinking process > > > > Maybe the thinking process is nothing but a view of what is happening > automatically. We are not aware of how all cells in our body > communicate with each other. Probably we are not aware of this > inter-cellular communication because we don't need to. Instead our > awareness is focusing on higher functioning such as thinking, emotions > and sense perceptions. To us, the advanced workings of the cells seem > automatic, instinctive. > > Maybe we could take yet another step on the hierarchical ladder of > awareness so that the thinking process becomes 'hidden' from us > (pushed below our level of awareness) in the same way communication > between cells in our body is hidden from us (pushed below our level of > awareness). It could be that the thinking process is as > automatic/instinctive as the workings of the cells, only that we have > a focus of awareness put on the thinking process. This means that > spiritual liberation, then, is nothing but the focus of awareness > rising above the level of thinking. > > /AL > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >It could be that the thinking process is as >automatic/instinctive as the workings of the cells, only that we have >a focus of awareness put on the thinking process. Yes, but the real and most important question is: WHO is " we " ... WHO is this entity that is aware of something. Certainly it must be different from all those things that it can or possibly could ever observe. Certainly once detected not many questions are left, because it can only be detected from a point of view which again is beyond this entity. This possible shift of consciousness is much more real than all those things that ever can be observed. >This means that >spiritual liberation, then, is nothing but the focus of awareness >rising above the level of thinking. The focus of awareness, all right... but... did you realize where this awareness comes from? S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > >It could be that the thinking process is as > >automatic/instinctive as the workings of the cells, only that we have > >a focus of awareness put on the thinking process. > > Yes, but the real and most important question is: WHO is " we " ... WHO > is this entity that is aware of something. Certainly it must be > different from all those things that it can or possibly could ever > observe. Certainly once detected not many questions are left, because > it can only be detected from a point of view which again is beyond > this entity. This possible shift of consciousness is much more real > than all those things that ever can be observed. Things can only be observed by a no-thing (which is not nothing, yet not a thing). > > >This means that > >spiritual liberation, then, is nothing but the focus of awareness > >rising above the level of thinking. > > The focus of awareness, all right... but... did you realize where this > awareness comes from? > > S. Awareness is aware of things, thus is must be a no-thing, or call it the unmanifested. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >Things can only be observed by a no-thing (which is not nothing, yet >not a thing). Exactly. It follows that your " we " that you have constituted as " being aware " is a no-thing. But my question was: WHO is " we " ... WHO is this entity that is aware of something... and which you are calling " we " . Your answer explains WHAT it is, but I have asked WHO it is. Are you really familiar with this no-thing? >Awareness is aware of things, thus is must be a no-thing, or call it >the unmanifested. Ok. But my question was: " did you realize where this awareness comes from? " ... You are talking about awareness as if it were manifested very well. As if you know it. But how can you know it? You suggested that the change of focus of awareness could be liberation. How can an unmanifested no-thing have any focus at all, not to speak of changing the focus? If this awareness has any focus it must have a source. But how can a no-thing have a source? Hence my question " where does it come from " . Not that I expected any answer from you :-) ... sometimes the right question is all that is needed. Greetings S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > >Things can only be observed by a no-thing (which is not nothing, yet > >not a thing). > > Exactly. It follows that your " we " that you have constituted as " being > aware " is a no-thing. But my question was: WHO is " we " ... WHO is this > entity that is aware of something... and which you are calling " we " . > Your answer explains WHAT it is, but I have asked WHO it is. Are you > really familiar with this no-thing? I know intellectually that there must be some glue binding existence into itself. > > >Awareness is aware of things, thus is must be a no-thing, or call it > >the unmanifested. > > Ok. But my question was: " did you realize where this awareness comes > from? " ... You are talking about awareness as if it were manifested > very well. As if you know it. But how can you know it? You suggested > that the change of focus of awareness could be liberation. How can an > unmanifested no-thing have any focus at all, not to speak of changing > the focus? If this awareness has any focus it must have a source. But > how can a no-thing have a source? Hence my question " where does it > come from " . Not that I expected any answer from you :-) ... sometimes > the right question is all that is needed. > > Greetings > S. As I understand it, the no-thing is itself the source. We can think of it as unlimited potential that is both the one and the many. This unlimited potential is both the manifested and the unmanifested. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: A.: Things can only be observed by a no-thing (which is not nothing, yet not a thing). S.: Exactly. It follows that your " we " that you have constituted as " being aware " is a no-thing. But my question was: WHO is " we " ... WHO is this entity that is aware of something... and which you are calling " we " . Your answer explains WHAT it is, but I have asked WHO it is. Are you really familiar with this no-thing? A.: I know intellectually that there must be some glue binding existence into itself. Lets recapitulate: You said that which observes must be a no-thing. Now, when I ask, WHO is it... your answer is that there must be some glue... what glue? Are you observing things or not? What for is there any glue needed? You are writing: >As I understand it, the no-thing is itself the source. We can think >of it as unlimited potential that is both the one and the many. This >unlimited potential is both the manifested and the unmanifested. Great, and can you see now: a source has no focus, a source never changes the direction. Only the unsteady river goes here and there. The source remains the same. Head for the source! Dont try to change the direction of the river... it is a futile attempt... (there are enough others who are all the time busy trying exactly this... haha!) Greetings S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > A.: > Things can only be observed by a no-thing (which is not nothing, yet > not a thing). > S.: > Exactly. It follows that your " we " that you have constituted as " being > aware " is a no-thing. But my question was: WHO is " we " ... WHO is this > entity that is aware of something... and which you are calling " we " . > Your answer explains WHAT it is, but I have asked WHO it is. Are you > really familiar with this no-thing? > A.: > I know intellectually that there must be some glue binding existence > into itself. > > Lets recapitulate: You said that which observes must be a no-thing. > Now, when I ask, WHO is it... your answer is that there must be some > glue... what glue? Are you observing things or not? What for is there > any glue needed? A: If something was truly separate from existence, it would simply not be a part of existence. There cannot be any truly separate objects. > > You are writing: > > >As I understand it, the no-thing is itself the source. We can think > >of it as unlimited potential that is both the one and the many. This > >unlimited potential is both the manifested and the unmanifested. > > Great, and can you see now: a source has no focus, a source never > changes the direction. Only the unsteady river goes here and there. > The source remains the same. Head for the source! Dont try to change > the direction of the river... it is a futile attempt... > > (there are enough others who are all the time busy trying exactly > this... haha!) > > Greetings > S. Hmm... Yes, the source must be here and now: omnipresent. The source cannot be a thing, not an object. Any object must have a context in which it exists as a seemingly (but not really) separate entity. That context must also have a source. The context is the manifested. The source is the unmanifested. The context, including all objects, and the source are not two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
