Guest guest Report post Posted February 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > ... > > > > position.......so there. > > > > > > Now you sound again like above in the start like Judi Rhodes who > kicked > > > me off her list after a few hours of posting yesterday with > questions > > > she did not wish to answer at the end of the rope ranch. > > > > LOL! Poor Judi. Maybe she is a real master in dismantling egos, or > she > > has a severe control issue to come to terms with. Or none of these, > or > > both. I shall try to not judge people, because I honestly don't > know. > > But I find it funny and a bit comforting that I am not the only one > > that did not last long on that list. > > > > /AL > > > Still got Judi-on-the-brain syndrome, AL? > > What's THAT about? > > ROFL > > your friend, > > freyja Maybe Judi is a true Master! Bless, bless /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I like what you wrote above: " put the brain in a place less > central > > > > or important and letting it be what it is just one part of > whole > > > > appearance and not the center of anything " > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Lewis, your messages are nearly always taste a tad to > long > > > for > > > > my taste. I take here something Frejya has picked up. A few > > > > questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. why and by whom do you think has the brain has been put in a > > > > central or important position? > > > > > > > > > > 2. what is the brain? You say, let it be what it is, but, do > you > > > > really know what the brain is? I don't. > > > > > > > 3. what is " whole appereance " and why is the brain a part of it? > > > > What if the brain is the whole appereance? Can you know for > shure? > > > > Why should " whole appereance " have parts and a part called > brain? > > > > > > > > 4. What is appereance? Is it different to something you would > be > > > > able to name, to define, to depict or describe? > > > > > > > > 5. Are you able to put the brain in whatever place you like and > > > > whenever? Don't you have reflexes? Go to a neurologist, let him > > > take > > > > a status on you and you will see how little control you have on > > > your > > > > brain? Visit an endocrinologist and then take an about-turn to > a > > > > psychiatrist. At last but not least think in terms of your > > > > profession as anthropologist! Don't fool yourself and others. > There > > > > is very, very little you can do about " brain " . > > > > > > > > Putting the brain in a less central position ia a gain a > central > > > > position.......so there. > > > > > > > > > > > > All:One > > > > Kip Almazy > > > > > > > > > Hi Kip, > > > > > > I don't know about Lewis, but I get that > > > his is an attempt to address the sense of > > > separation in terms of focusing on questioning > > > that the brain has the central role in managing > > > consciousness....which perhaps still stems > > > from a very subtle fear and misunderstanding > > > and reluctance to let go of the fundamental > > > mind/body split. > > > > > > > > > Here is a selection from a book called > > > " Molecules of Emotion " by Candace B. Pert, PhD, > > > Research Professor in the Department of > > > Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown > > > University Medical Center where she also > > > conducts AIDS research. She was featured in > > > Bill Moyers' book and PBS series > > > Healing and the Mind and lectures extensively > > > throughout the country. > > > > > > > > > begin excerpt > > > > > > Naomi illustrated the principle of the mind > > > becoming matter, preceding matter, organizing > > > matter, by singling out the young man in our > > > audience and planting a thought in his mind > > > that made him blush. Thoughts and emotions > > > came first, and the peptides followed, causing > > > the blood vessels in his face to open. > > > As the sages in India understood, the non-stuff, > > > the " no-thing " , is the source, and the stuff, > > > the material phenomenon, manifests from there. > > > > > > This is such a fundamental shift for the > > > Western mind, but one that science can help > > > us understand. Originally, we scientists > > > thought that the flow of neuropeptides and > > > receptors was being directed from centers in > > > the brain -- the frontal cortex, the hypothalmus, > > > the amygdala. This fit our reductionist model, > > > supporting the view that thoughts and feelings > > > are products of neuronal activity, and that the > > > brain was the prime mover, the seat of > > > consciousness. Then as a result of my own and > > > other people's work in the laboratory, we found > > > that the flow of chemicals arose from many sites > > > in the different systems simultaneously - the > > > immune, the nervous, the endocrine, and the > > > gastrointestinal -- and that these sites formed > > > nodal points on a vast superhighway of internal > > > information exchange taking place on a molecular > > > level. We then had to consider a system with > > > intelligence diffused throughout, rather than > > > a one-way operation adhering to strictly to the > > > laws of cause and effect, as was previously > > > thought when we believed that the brain ruled over > > > all. > > > > > > So, if the flow of our molecules is not directed > > > by the brain, and the brain is just another nodal > > > point in the network, then we must ask-- > > > Where does the intelligence, the information that > > > runs our bodymind, come from? We know that information > > > has an infinite capability to expand and increase, > > > and that it is beyond time and place, matter and > > > energy. Therefore, it cannot belong to the material > > > world we apprehend with our senses, but must belong > > > to its own realm, one that we can experience as > > > emotion, the mind, the spirit, an inforealm! This is > > > the term I prefer, because it has a scientific realm > > > to it, but others mean the same thing when they say > > > field of intelligence, innate intelligence, the wisdom > > > of the body. Still others call it God, or Holy Spirit. > > > > > > Reductionists will always argue that the molecules > > > come first, are the primal force, and that thoughts > > > and emotions follow as a kind of epiphenomena of the > > > molecules. And they've got good evidence: Doesn't > > > the flow of peptides change the physiologic responses, > > > which then create the feelings we experience? Doesn't > > > the chemical release of endorphins cause the feeling of > > > pain relief or the euphoria of the runner's high? > > > > > > I don't deny this, but what I'm saying is that we > > > must recognize that there is a two-way system of > > > communication at work. Yes, the release of endorphins > > > can cause pain relief and euphoria, But conversely, > > > we can bring about the release of endorphins through > > > our state of mind. I like to think of mental phenomena > > > as messengers bringing information and intelligence from > > > the non-physical world to the body, where they > > > manifest via their physical substrate, the neuropeptides > > > and their receptors. > > > > > > -end excerpt- > > > > > > " Molecules of Emotion " Candace Pert, PhD > > > > > > > > > ~freyja > > > > Yes, the brain, molecules, endorphins e t c could be an effect of > mind > > and not a cause. Or maybe a better view is, as we get from Candece; > > mind/body is a two-way system, where cause-and-effect relationships > > are not one-way streets. > > > > /AL > > AL, do you need to 'get' that from Candace? > I thought you already knew that on your own. > And that is also what I was saying in > our dialogue as well, but, I guess > the 'experts' are needed to validate it. > > well anyway, here's some old rock lyrics > for you > > " I'm just looking for clues at the scene > of the crime, > life's been good to me so far.... > > I can't complain, but sometimes > I still do, > life's been good to me so far.... > > I just keep moving on without knowing why.... > life's been good to me so far " > > ~Joe Walsh I am still intrigued by what Candace wrote about what she called the inforealm. I wonder what that is. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 19, 2005 kipalmazy wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > What is below is very long. Look at it. See how long it is? Perhaps > you cannot read something this long about me and you and what you > raise. > > > I will read it someday, Lewis, thanks for the response. But, what > are you hiding behind such a verborrhea? Nothing. That you have no clue? I have been saying that for the longest. > There is nothing wrong with it, Lewis. I know that. It is a fact of my life. Never able to be different than that as it is. How about you? Nobody has a clue what life > actually is or the brain or consciousness or whatever. Perhaps. Some people feel and think and believe they do. I could not judge all people like that. Who am I to judge like that. There are > models and concepts, ideas, illusions, ideologies, religions, > scientifical theories and all that stuff. All these things can be > discussed. Nobody is wrong or right. There you said it as I have been saying all along. Next time remember what you said here and apply to what you said below about guru-stink. > > So please be so kind and drop that " guru-stink " , it stinks really my > friend and don't tell me I am projecting some shit, I am not telling > nobody here where to put the brain. Did I tell someone where to put the brain? You smell a foul and disgusting guru-stink, Kip? Others may smell a guru-stink too. Will that make you happy if many people smell a guru-stink? That they shake your hand and embrace you saying, yeah that asshole doesn't get it. Take a poll. Take a vote. Run me out. I do not mind being a pariah to some or all, to be a stinking foul smelling thing for how shall I drop being what I am, Kip? If this is what I am and you smell guru-stink can your commanding me to be other than I am be had at your whim? What can I do about what I am? Change at your command? What are you trying to say? Who are you to say so? God. Almighty Kip. Trying to beat down a disembodied voice. Why? I answered your questions to my best and you return with an ad hominem attack. That is what you are. Nothing can be done. > See? Capice? Yes I see that you do as you are and you cannot help it as I cannot help being as I am. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > kipalmazy wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > What is below is very long. Look at it. See how long it is? Perhaps > > you cannot read something this long about me and you and what you > > raise. > > > > > > I will read it someday, Lewis, thanks for the response. But, what > > are you hiding behind such a verborrhea? > > > Nothing. > > That you have no clue? > > > I have been saying that for the longest. > > > > There is nothing wrong with it, Lewis. > > I know that. It is a fact of my life. Never able to be different than > that as it is. How about you? > > > Nobody has a clue what life > > actually is or the brain or consciousness or whatever. > > Perhaps. Some people feel and think and believe they do. I could not > judge all people like that. Who am I to judge like that. > > There are > > models and concepts, ideas, illusions, ideologies, religions, > > scientifical theories and all that stuff. All these things can be > > discussed. Nobody is wrong or right. > > > There you said it as I have been saying all along. Next time remember > what you said here and apply to what you said below about guru- stink. > > > > > So please be so kind and drop that " guru-stink " , it stinks really my > > friend and don't tell me I am projecting some shit, I am not telling > > nobody here where to put the brain. > > > Did I tell someone where to put the brain? > > You smell a foul and disgusting guru-stink, Kip? > > Others may smell a guru-stink too. Will that make you happy if many > people smell a guru-stink? That they shake your hand and embrace you > saying, yeah that asshole doesn't get it. Take a poll. Take a vote. Run > me out. I do not mind being a pariah to some or all, to be a stinking > foul smelling thing for how shall I drop being what I am, Kip? > > If this is what I am and you smell guru-stink can your commanding me to > be other than I am be had at your whim? What can I do about what I am? > Change at your command? What are you trying to say? Who are you to say > so? God. Almighty Kip. Trying to beat down a disembodied voice. Why? > > I answered your questions to my best and you return with an ad hominem > attack. That is what you are. Nothing can be done. > > > > > See? Capice? > > > Yes I see that you do as you are and you cannot help it as I cannot help > being as I am. Finally a message after my fancy, Lewis. You are right in many points. Don't take it ad hominem, it isn't worth the trouble. Be as you are Lewis but confere the same right to others posting on this board and on Atoz. I think we had already a talk about your " sustained imquiries " on posters. Take this as a " sustained inquiry " on my side. It is million times more difficult to listen than to type. Though, as you say, you have nothing more to introspect in, you maybe can take this as an inspiration. a bow All:One Kip Almazy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 19, 2005 kipalmazy wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > >> >>kipalmazy wrote: >> >> >>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> >>>wrote: >>> >>>What is below is very long. Look at it. See how long it is? > > Perhaps > >>>you cannot read something this long about me and you and what > > you > >>>raise. >>> >>> >>>I will read it someday, Lewis, thanks for the response. But, > >>> what > >>>are you hiding behind such a verborrhea? >> >> >>Nothing. >> >>>That you have no clue? >> >> >>I have been saying that for the longest. >> >> >> >>>There is nothing wrong with it, Lewis. >> >>I know that. It is a fact of my life. Never able to be different > > than > >>that as it is. How about you? >> >> >>> Nobody has a clue what life >>> >>>actually is or the brain or consciousness or whatever. >> >>Perhaps. Some people feel and think and believe they do. I could > > not > >>judge all people like that. Who am I to judge like that. >> >> There are >> >>>models and concepts, ideas, illusions, ideologies, religions, >>>scientifical theories and all that stuff. All these things can > > be > >>>discussed. Nobody is wrong or right. >> >> >>There you said it as I have been saying all along. Next time > > remember > >>what you said here and apply to what you said below about guru- > >>stink. > >>>So please be so kind and drop that " guru-stink " , it stinks > > really my > >>>friend and don't tell me I am projecting some shit, I am not > > telling > >>>nobody here where to put the brain. >> >> >>Did I tell someone where to put the brain? >> >>You smell a foul and disgusting guru-stink, Kip? >> >>Others may smell a guru-stink too. Will that make you happy if > > many > >>people smell a guru-stink? That they shake your hand and embrace > > you > >>saying, yeah that asshole doesn't get it. Take a poll. Take a > > vote. Run > >>me out. I do not mind being a pariah to some or all, to be a > > stinking > >>foul smelling thing for how shall I drop being what I am, Kip? >> >>If this is what I am and you smell guru-stink can your commanding > > me to > >>be other than I am be had at your whim? What can I do about what I > > am? > >>Change at your command? What are you trying to say? Who are you > > to say > >>so? God. Almighty Kip. Trying to beat down a disembodied voice. > > Why? > >>I answered your questions to my best and you return with an ad > > hominem > >>attack. That is what you are. Nothing can be done. >> >> >> >> >>>See? Capice? >> >> >>Yes I see that you do as you are and you cannot help it as I > > cannot help > >>being as I am. > > > > > Finally a message after my fancy, Lewis. Do you think anything has changed Kip. That I have suddenly become something different, showing my true colors or something like that. If you do, you are mistaken. You are right in many > points. Don't take it ad hominem, it isn't worth the trouble. That is correct. Be as > you are Lewis but confere the same right to others posting on this > board and on Atoz. That is no problem. I have never told people forcefully what to think or how to think or what to do or what to change or how to live. I have questioned and inquired and argued. I have suggested. Never commanded. Is that not what we do here. Is there anything sacred here? If there is a conventional rule let me know and make sure this conventional rule applies to all conventional others. I share my experience and anyone may do with it what they wish and interpret as they wish and treat my expression as they wish. I do as I am as you do as you do and others do as they are. Has it been different than that? I think we had already a talk about > your " sustained imquiries " on posters. I do not remember it. Refresh my memory please. There is no sustained inquiries on posters. No one here is an object in my experience. I am open. I share all that I am without reserve. I speak to that which is subject in each person who calls me. I am not a therapist or guru or anthropologist. I am me. Take this as a " sustained > inquiry " on my side. It is million times more difficult to listen > than to type. Is a long post to numerous questions the sign of not listening? I read all posts no matter how long if it is something that moves. You can read whatever moves you. You can respond to whatever moves you. You can write short or long as it moves you as I do as others do. You asked questions. Answers were given. You provided no responses to the answers that were given, you said you did not read what was written. Then there was an attack on Lewis, as poster, as you projected it. There were responses to that as it was. There was no sustained inquiry by you. What was done is Kip's version of a sustained inquiry. I do not know what it was. What you say has no sense. I have never done this to anyone. My inquiry is always direct and without sham, trickery, pretense. I face each person directly as it is possible and it goes where it does. Your lesson, your sustained inquiry, is shown for it is. > > Though, as you say, you have nothing more to introspect in, you > maybe can take this as an inspiration. There is nothing inspiring in what you did Kip. Only the demonstration of what you are and what I am. > > > a bow > All:One > Kip Almazy To whom and for whom and why? Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 19, 2005 > > a bow > > All:One > > Kip Almazy > > > To whom and for whom and why? > > Lewis Lewis, simply bowing.....just that! It's up to you to find the answer to that question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 19, 2005 kipalmazy wrote: > >>>a bow >>>All:One >>>Kip Almazy >> >> >>To whom and for whom and why? >> >>Lewis > > > > > > Lewis, simply bowing.....just that! It's up to you to find the answer > to that question. I have. Reading between the words. :-) Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >Next, take as large an inhale as possible trying to leave no air in your lungs and try to hold this air in your lungs and long as possible, refusing to exhale using all your effort to do so. Remain seated and notice how this experience progresses and ends. Generally, pressure builds up in a certain way and gets to the point where you simply have to exhale. You cannot do otherwise. You are helpless in this. Not only were you helpless to prevent exhaling, you were trying not to do what the pressure was working towards making you do, exhale. Your effort to not exhale was futile, an unwisdom in undertaking, in the face of the mounting pressure to exhale, it being a natural phenomena. Did you make a decision to exhale? Were you able to do otherwise? Your action of holding your breath was disabled against your desire. You were helpless, it was futile. It was helpless acceptance. This is what I am >referring to. I understand that you used this example to demonstrate the kind of helplessness you generally find yourself to be in. Yes, exhaling is inevitable, it is not only a survival mechanism but even a physical law: I will exhale when I faint at the latest, provided nothing is blocking my nose or other circumstances that I cannot foresee. Generally I have found that literally everything is inevitable because of the simple fact that it happens. Take any choice: I chose to answer your posting with another posting, I am doing it now. Afterwards I can say that I could have chosen otherwise. But in fact I have answered. This applies to any choice, dosnt it? And not only to the choices I make, also to this what everything around me choses to be. In that sence I can also call myself helpless. On the other hand, whenever I am aware of this simple fact I feel free and limitless, I am not the victim of outer circumstances, I am simply the only way I could be. I am free like a white cloud on the blue sky, which just floats its way, changing its shape, performing a dance as it is bound to, completely unforeseeable but inevitably. The strange thing is that I can watch all this, reflect upon it, feel my possible resistance until I understand that even the resistance or the desire is part of the inevitable dance. The inevitability of everything is so obvious to my intellectual understanding that I wonder why we so often pose as the ones who are controlling something. It must be a survival mechanism. I can even see it in my cat, how it is trying to manipulate situations out of desire, although it gives up quite easily when it sees the futility. >Advocates of non-doing mislead in talking about non-doing. One cannot do non-doing. Non-doing is a by product of complete futility, of a natural inability to act in a >certain way. Non-doing occurs on account of inability. Commonly we associate " doing " with acts that are resulting from thoughts and thus seem to be results of more or less conscious decisions. The thoughts may com from half-darkness or from full darkness... where to draw the border line? >So if you ardently struggle and wrestle with your questions to the end, >to the end of the earth, to the abyss and into it to the bottom, ( " Who >creates that which you accept? " " Wordless wonder...? " ) then you may realize the complete futility of it, and then you will be unable to engage in it again for you have done all that is humanly possible and come into that place where all is known not by whos and whats but by wonder and awe and senses and sensations beyond the appearance's crude >intellect, emotion and will. The experience that all the experienced is still unfolding around us, inevitably and unexplainable - including our helplessness - is leaving us in wordless wonder, beyond intellect. When the recognition of the futility of our quest is putting us into this position then I cannot see the search as futile ... when I ask " who is creating this " ... " where does it come from " ... I want to illustrate my feeling that there is something bigger than me, and be it unexplainable, unexpressible. Opposed to those who call life itself futile, worthless to be lived, since it just makes no sense. My questions, directed to you, are also an attempt to provoke an answer, which you are giving me when you use espressions like " wonder " - instead of a simple " nothing " . >Beyond I Am there is that which illuminates making one the stories told. I had to reflect a while on this sentence before I got it :-) Love Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >Next, take as large an inhale as possible trying to leave no air in > your > lungs and try to hold this air in your lungs and long as possible, > refusing to exhale using all your effort to do so. Remain seated and > notice how this experience progresses and ends. > Generally, pressure builds up in a certain way and gets to the point > where you simply have to exhale. > You cannot do otherwise. > You are helpless in this. > Not only were you helpless to prevent exhaling, you were trying not to > do what the pressure was working towards making you do, exhale. > Your effort to not exhale was futile, an unwisdom in undertaking, in > the > face of the mounting pressure to exhale, it being a natural phenomena. > Did you make a decision to exhale? Were you able to do otherwise? Your > action of holding your breath was disabled against your desire. You > were > helpless, it was futile. It was helpless acceptance. This is what I am > >referring to. > > I understand that you used this example to demonstrate the kind of > helplessness you generally find yourself to be in. Yes, exhaling is > inevitable, it is not only a survival mechanism but even a physical > law: I will exhale when I faint at the latest, provided nothing is > blocking my nose or other circumstances that I cannot foresee. > > Generally I have found that literally everything is inevitable because > of the simple fact that it happens. Take any choice: I chose to answer > your posting with another posting, I am doing it now. Afterwards I can > say that I could have chosen otherwise. But in fact I have answered. > This applies to any choice, dosnt it? And not only to the choices I > make, also to this what everything around me choses to be. In that > sence I can also call myself helpless. > > On the other hand, whenever I am aware of this simple fact I feel free > and limitless, I am not the victim of outer circumstances, I am simply > the only way I could be. I am free like a white cloud on the blue sky, > which just floats its way, changing its shape, performing a dance as > it is bound to, completely unforeseeable but inevitably. > > The strange thing is that I can watch all this, reflect upon it, feel > my possible resistance until I understand that even the resistance or > the desire is part of the inevitable dance. The inevitability of > everything is so obvious to my intellectual understanding that I > wonder why we so often pose as the ones who are controlling something. > It must be a survival mechanism. I can even see it in my cat, how it > is trying to manipulate situations out of desire, although it gives up > quite easily when it sees the futility. > > >Advocates of non-doing > mislead in talking about non-doing. One cannot do non-doing. Non- doing > is a by product of complete futility, of a natural inability to act > in a > >certain way. Non-doing occurs on account of inability. > > Commonly we associate " doing " with acts that are resulting from > thoughts and thus seem to be results of more or less conscious > decisions. The thoughts may com from half-darkness or from full > darkness... where to draw the border line? I cannot draw the line, Stefan. In trying to answer, I noticed a coming out and then a going back, a hesitancy with answering not knowing and then again a coming out and going back and now I can write this and it seems that there is a checking and ok-ing sensation trying to understand half-darkness and full darkness. If thoughts are conscious these may represent this checking and ok-ing sensation and if the thoughts are centered on rather than the sensations I imagine there will be confusion since the sensations are closer to the action as it is occurring then the thoughts which are more superficial. Thoughts seem to be superficial representations of these sensations in the dark and half-darkness, I imagine, is where the wordless sensations and related thoughts are present. And no darkness is when there are only thoughts without the sensitivity to the wordless sensations, a sort of disconnect which allows thoughts to swirl and cascade without relation to the ground in darkness. That is my experience of it. > >So if you ardently struggle and wrestle with your questions to the > end, > >to the end of the earth, to the abyss and into it to the bottom, > ( " Who > >creates that which you accept? " " Wordless wonder...? " ) then you may > realize the complete futility of it, and then you will be unable to > engage in it again for you have done all that is humanly possible and > come into that place where all is known not by whos and whats but by > wonder and awe and senses and sensations beyond the appearance's crude > >intellect, emotion and will. > > The experience that all the experienced is still unfolding around us, > inevitably and unexplainable - including our helplessness - is leaving > us in wordless wonder, beyond intellect. When the recognition of the > futility of our quest is putting us into this position then I cannot > see the search as futile ... when I ask " who is creating this " ... > " where does it come from " ... I want to illustrate my feeling that > there is something bigger than me, and be it unexplainable, > unexpressible. Opposed to those who call life itself futile, > worthless to be lived, since it just makes no sense. My questions, > directed to you, are also an attempt to provoke an answer, which you > are giving me when you use espressions like " wonder " - instead of a > simple " nothing " . > >Beyond I Am there is that which illuminates making one the stories > told. > > I had to reflect a while on this sentence before I got it :-) > > Love > Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > I am still intrigued by what Candace wrote about what she called the > inforealm. I wonder what that is. > > /AL f. AL, now's your chance to stop wondering and start using your imagination! That's what it's for. Do you mean you wonder what the inforealm is? Candace says it has to do with how the innate intelligence generated by subtle energies from flowing biochemicals, all converges in the inforrealm. SCIENCE: THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH For me, science has been a quest to understand nature - both human and Mother. As I have known it in its purest, most exalted form, science is the search for truth. It was this belief that drew me to science, and through all my naivete and despite all my many false turns, it's what has kept me on the journey. The heart of science is feminine. In its essence, science has very little to do with competition, control, separation -- all qualities that have come to be associated with science in its male-dominated, twentieth century form. The science I have come to know and love is unifying, spontaneous, intuitive, caring - a process more akin to surrender than to domination. We must stop worshipping a dispassionate " truth " and expecting the experts to lead us to it. There's a higher intelligence, one that comes to us via our very molecules and results from our participation in a system far greater than the small, circumscribed one we call " ego " , the world we receive from our five senses alone. New understanding from quantum physics and information theory points us away from the cool, detached, solitary genius, the one who has the answers that others don't have, as if the truth could be owned, and toward a more collegial, participatory model of knowledge acquisition. The rational, masculine, materialistic world we live in places too much value on competition and aggression. Science at its most exalted is a truth-seeking endeavor, which encompasses the values of cooperation and communication, based on trust - trust in ourselves and in one another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > I am still intrigued by what Candace wrote about what she called the > > inforealm. I wonder what that is. > > > > /AL > > > f. AL, now's your chance to stop wondering > and start using your imagination! > That's what it's for. > > Do you mean > you wonder what the inforealm is? > > Candace says it has to do with how > the innate intelligence generated by > subtle energies from flowing biochemicals, > all converges in the inforrealm. > > SCIENCE: THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH > > For me, science has been a quest to > understand nature - both human and Mother. > As I have known it in its purest, most > exalted form, science is the search for > truth. It was this belief that drew me > to science, and through all my naivete > and despite all my many false turns, it's > what has kept me on the journey. > > The heart of science is feminine. In its > essence, science has very little to do > with competition, control, separation -- > all qualities that have come to be associated > with science in its male-dominated, twentieth > century form. The science I have come to know > and love is unifying, spontaneous, intuitive, > caring - a process more akin to surrender > than to domination. > > We must stop worshipping a dispassionate > " truth " and expecting the experts to lead > us to it. There's a higher intelligence, > one that comes to us via our very molecules > and results from our participation in a > system far greater than the small, circumscribed > one we call " ego " , the world we receive from > our five senses alone. New understanding from > quantum physics and information theory points > us away from the cool, detached, solitary > genius, the one who has the answers that others > don't have, as if the truth could be owned, and > toward a more collegial, participatory model > of knowledge acquisition. The rational, masculine, > materialistic world we live in places too much value > on competition and aggression. Science at its most > exalted is a truth-seeking endeavor, which encompasses > the values of cooperation and communication, based > on trust - trust in ourselves and in one another. I totally agree that science has become a " few geniuses marching on their own " who the rest of humanity more or less blindly has to follow. It reminds me of when I learned something in school. Sometimes I learend how to solve mathematical problems by following a " guideline " . Sure, the problems were solved but I myself had no deeper understanding of how and why the guideline worked. There was no deeper connection to the solutions I managed to produce. At other times, some teachers managed to give a clear picture of the deeper connections, and suddenly: wow! then I understood the mathematical problem on an entirely different level. True knowledge is for me that deeper connection, that direct contact with the how and why. When we really know something, we don't have to search in our memory or think about it for several seconds. Direct knowledge acts like a flash, like instant understanding, like direct feeling on all levels including the intellectual level. /AL /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: St.wrote: >>decisions. The thoughts may com from half-darkness or from full >>darkness... where to draw the border line? L. wrote: >I cannot draw the line, Stefan. In trying to answer, I noticed a coming out and then a going back, a hesitancy with answering not knowing and then again a coming out and going back and now I can write this and it seems that there is a checking and ok-ing sensation trying to understand half-darkness and full darkness. If thoughts are conscious these may represent this checking and ok-ing sensation and if the thoughts are centered on rather than the sensations I imagine there will be confusion since the sensations are closer to the action as it is occurring then the thoughts which are more superficial. Thoughts seem to be superficial representations of these sensations in the dark and half-darkness, I imagine, is where the wordless sensations and related thoughts are present. And no darkness is when there are only thoughts without the sensitivity to the wordless sensations, a sort of disconnect which allows thoughts to swirl and cascade without relation to the ground >in darkness. That is my experience of it. Hi Lewis, yes, now that you say it, I see that sensation is closer to action than thought. For some reason - mainly because some people on this list are advocating the theory that everything there is are thoughts - I have added " sensations " to the category of " thoughts " , but I was never happy with this simplification. Love Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > St.wrote: > >>decisions. The thoughts may com from half-darkness or from full > >>darkness... where to draw the border line? > > L. wrote: > >I cannot draw the line, Stefan. In trying to answer, I noticed a > coming out and then a going back, a hesitancy with answering not > knowing and then again a coming out and going back and now I can > write this and it seems that there is a checking and ok-ing > sensation trying to understand half-darkness and full darkness. If > thoughts are conscious these may represent this checking and ok-ing > sensation and if the thoughts are centered on rather than the > sensations I imagine there will be confusion since the sensations > are closer to the action as it is occurring then the thoughts which > are more superficial. Thoughts seem to be superficial > representations of these sensations in the dark and half-darkness, I > imagine, is where the wordless sensations and related thoughts are > present. And no darkness is when there are only thoughts without the > sensitivity to the wordless sensations, a sort of disconnect which > allows thoughts to swirl and cascade without relation to the ground > >in darkness. That is my experience of it. > > Hi Lewis, > > yes, now that you say it, I see that sensation is closer to action > than thought. For some reason - mainly because some people on this > list are advocating the theory that everything there is are thoughts - > I have added " sensations " to the category of " thoughts " , but I was > never happy with this simplification. > > Love > Stefan It is very interesting to add sensations and thoughts to a single category and in doing so it gives rise to questions. Stefan, have you given consideration as to what these wordless sensations such as these are in their nature and their possible origins using some of the conventional stories? Love, Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > St.wrote: > > >>decisions. The thoughts may com from half-darkness or from full > > >>darkness... where to draw the border line? > > > > L. wrote: > > >I cannot draw the line, Stefan. In trying to answer, I noticed a > > coming out and then a going back, a hesitancy with answering not > > knowing and then again a coming out and going back and now I can > > write this and it seems that there is a checking and ok-ing > > sensation trying to understand half-darkness and full darkness. If > > thoughts are conscious these may represent this checking and ok-ing > > sensation and if the thoughts are centered on rather than the > > sensations I imagine there will be confusion since the sensations > > are closer to the action as it is occurring then the thoughts which > > are more superficial. Thoughts seem to be superficial > > representations of these sensations in the dark and half-darkness, I > > imagine, is where the wordless sensations and related thoughts are > > present. And no darkness is when there are only thoughts without the > > sensitivity to the wordless sensations, a sort of disconnect which > > allows thoughts to swirl and cascade without relation to the ground > > >in darkness. That is my experience of it. > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > yes, now that you say it, I see that sensation is closer to action > > than thought. For some reason - mainly because some people on this > > list are advocating the theory that everything there is are thoughts - > > I have added " sensations " to the category of " thoughts " , but I was > > never happy with this simplification. > > > > Love > > Stefan > > It is very interesting to add sensations and thoughts to a single > category and in doing so it gives rise to questions. Stefan, have you > given consideration as to what these wordless sensations such as these > are in their nature and their possible origins using some of the > conventional stories? > > Love, > > Lewis Sorry Stefan, in my enthusiasm, I forgot the other questions. If you have considered it, what possible stories can be made for them? It seems to me in experience that as distinct phenomena, these sensations being qualitatively different in experience than thoughts and in some sense as being more basic than thoughts while being the base of thoughts as if the two are one thing and distinguishable like fire and heat or fire and illumination (light), one arising with the other. What is your experience, your story of it? Love Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Lewis wrote: >It is very interesting to add sensations and thoughts to a single category and in doing so it gives rise to questions. Stefan, have you given consideration as to what these wordless sensations such as these are in their nature and their possible origins using some of the >conventional stories? >Sorry Stefan, in my enthusiasm, I forgot the other questions. If you have considered it, what possible stories can be made for them? It seems to me in experience that as distinct phenomena, these sensations being qualitatively different in experience than thoughts and in some sense as being more basic than thoughts while being the base of thoughts as if the two are one thing and distinguishable like fire and heat or fire and illumination (light), one arising with the >other. What is your experience, your story of it? Hi Lewis, trying to whatch and identify sensations for one day now, I would be able to write one book or more to describe and report what I experienced... I want to say something about those " inner sensations " , that directly lead to thought or action. They seem to happen in parts below or around my brain. One example: often the impulse to act is coming from a sensation in my upper chest, between the heart and the throat. This sensation could be described as feeling of restlessness. Often the sensation is followed by acting and if there was a thought in between it must have been so short that I cant remember. Trying to solve a mathematical problem I feel sensations in, between and above my eyes and around my throat and ears as well, as I am remembering the formula. In this case the sensation rather seems to happen simultaniously with the thinking. It might be called part of the thinking. When the sensations are becoming too uncomfortable I give up my attempt to solve the problem and rather use my calculator. As far as convention is concerned: I have now knoledge about brain science etc. and their correct terminology. I just try my best to describe the perception - or to be accurate, memory of perception - in my own words. As a conventional story the Indian model of the seven chacras, prana and kundalini comes to my mind. This model seems to come quite close to what I experience, although I dont practise any yoga etc... The sensations I have tried to describe above are detectable by sensing and they may be the root for thoughts. But what about the inner world of " imagination " . Patterns of colours coming up on the inner screen, small movies, sounds, music, geometric unfoldings, associations between completely different sensational realms, phantasy. I wonder if those should be called thoughts or rather sensations? If thought is associated with language, then thoughts are only a small part of what happens in my mind. On the other hand: this intuitive, associative, imaginary process can very well be part of what I call " thinking " . For now I would like to conclude that I cannot draw a distinctive line between sensation and thought. I can feel sensations, but I cannot feel the brain. I am not even sure anymore if thoughts are happening in the brain. That what I feel happens in the part below or around the brain. Not even necessarily inside the boarders of my body. It all seems to happen simultaneously and only a tiny part is remembered. Love Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Stefan wrote: > > Lewis wrote: > > >>It is very interesting to add sensations and thoughts to a single > > category and in doing so it gives rise to questions. Stefan, have you > given consideration as to what these wordless sensations such as > these are in their nature and their possible origins using some of the > >>conventional stories? > > >>Sorry Stefan, in my enthusiasm, I forgot the other questions. If you > > have considered it, what possible stories can be made for them? It > seems to me in experience that as distinct phenomena, these > sensations being qualitatively different in experience than thoughts > and in some sense as being more basic than thoughts while being the > base of thoughts as if the two are one thing and distinguishable like > fire and heat or fire and illumination (light), one arising with the > >>other. What is your experience, your story of it? > > > Hi Lewis, Hi Stefan, > trying to whatch and identify sensations for one day now, I would be > able to write one book or more to describe and report what I > experienced... > > I want to say something about those " inner sensations " , that directly > lead to thought or action. They seem to happen in parts below or > around my brain. One example: often the impulse to act is coming from > a sensation in my upper chest, between the heart and the throat. This > sensation could be described as feeling of restlessness. Often > the sensation is followed by acting and if there was a thought in > between it must have been so short that I cant remember. That is my experience as well in those locations. I experience it as " movements " but not knowing what they are and then an action may occur whatever that action may be described, and is experienced as an outflowing of those movements. Movements related to writing, speaking comes from the lower chest and out through the throat so it seems as an experience for me. Wordless sensations are secondary to movements in experience and are more identifiable as there is direction or guidance in them and it is like a gentle pushing out or pulling back when there is hesitancy trying to find something that flows and when it flows action occurs. When it does not there is inaction. If these wordless promptings are ignored then thoughts emerge and by this I mean verbal things, worded sensations that are " heard as like a voice talking " and these appear and they may be one in one direction or two or more in different directions and then it seems like a choice has to be made. If a choice is made it seems that action occurs and if the choice flows there is silence, if it does not flow there are more thoughts that redirect, doubt, and otherwise disagree with the action and if these are ignored then the thoughts cascade into confusion. This is the memory of experiences past. > > Trying to solve a mathematical problem I feel sensations in, between > and above my eyes and around my throat and ears as well, as I am > remembering the formula. In this case the sensation rather seems to > happen simultaneously with the thinking. It might be called part of > the thinking. When the sensations are becoming too uncomfortable I > give up my attempt to solve the problem and rather use my calculator. Yes. I experience this if I make effort to solve a math problems or puzzles of any kind and the sensation is in the eyes, forehead, crown, a line across the temples to the tips and outer portions of the ears. Also, all new things experienced that require formulas, analysis, procedures like learning a programming language feel this way in the beginning until it digested in the darkness and then it becomes effortless. It is like watching my son learn to play the cello and my daughter the piano. They worked with the instructions for awhile and then they were bowing and fingering away without thought so it looks so and they tell me so. My son plays chess while he plays the cello. I sit and wonder and how it happens. It is beyond my ken. I see this phenomena in many people who are able it seems to do many things as the same time without effort or conscious thinking. They just do it. Like driving a car, listening to music and talking about the music or something else. This is a wonder. > > As far as convention is concerned: I have now knoledge about brain > science etc. and their correct terminology. I just try my best to > describe the perception - or to be accurate, memory of perception - > in my own words. > > As a conventional story the Indian model of the seven chacras, prana > and kundalini comes to my mind. This model seems to come quite > close to what I experience, although I dont practise any yoga etc... Fmready's post on stereoscopic vision mentioned the third eye and knowing only mumbo jumbo type things about it from TV and common talk, I researched it and found the chakras, the ajna chakra, and read about each of them a little and there seems to be a relation between my experiences and these things. The chakras are conceived to be seven major nodal points and a whole lot of minor ones in fingers and knees and toes, etc. from which the flows of energy emanates in different ways and is modified and distributed as a center, one for each chakra. My experience can be divided like this if the " sensations " center around a location in the appearance like in speaking versus solving a puzzle. The movements and sensations do not seem to be discretely separate into nodal points and it is more like an unimpeded flow throughout the appearance as it encounters other appearances however they appear so that there is no location just movements that pulse in the appearance as needed. Though chakras seem to fit my experience conceptually they seem limiting. I suppose if they are loosened up a bit not made hard fast and more dynamic they could account for experiences. A kundalini practitioner could help with this. I know next to nothing on this and my simple understanding is not worth much in it. > > The sensations I have tried to describe above are detectable by > sensing and they may be the root for thoughts. But what about the > inner world of " imagination " . Patterns of colours coming up on the > inner screen, small movies, sounds, music, geometric unfoldings, > associations between completely different sensational realms, > phantasy. I wonder if those should be called thoughts or rather > sensations? If thought is associated with language, then thoughts are > only a small part of what happens in my mind. On the other hand: this > intuitive, associative, imaginary process can very well be part of > what I call " thinking " . In this, Stefan, I have only little experience, mainly the small movies that come up when I forgot where something is; a little movie suddenly comes up and it is shown where I left something, or bits of a memory of scenes of things done or experienced or a person's name is repeated, a solution to a perplexity and these are all for little signs and signals and wonderment and for finding stuff. I get the worded stuff sometimes. No colors other than that in open eyed perception or if I rub my eyes, no geometric unfoldings, or music or fantasy. My kids get the music. I do not. I listen to music and enjoy it and get carried away with some instrument only music as I become it or brought to tears for some reason in it. I get sensations of disappearance, not knowing location in time and space, of being a swirl, of having no appearance just a seeing thing. Stuff like that and it is all connected to appearances. I agree. I prefer to know that all such things, all of what we spoke about above as the inseparable " contents " experienced. The contents are separated into all these distinguishable experiences the same way it is done with what is commonly called the " external " or " outer " appearances. For me, they are all appearances and for convention's sake, I talk about them as they can be distinguished and labeled and then others may distinguish them and label them differently or similarly and in that we can learn something about these appearances nd what is undergone. Indeed it is only a small part. And everyone seems to have different recognition and experiences of the appearances. And the processes associated with these contents are also appearances and knowing them is useful for these processes are intimately involved in the dealing with the appearances. At one time, I tried to discover the processes and made a model of them as I experienced it. It was incomprehensible in general and eventually dissolved. Darkness took its place. > > For now I would like to conclude that I cannot draw a distinctive > line between sensation and thought. I can feel sensations, but I > cannot feel the brain. Neither can I. I am not even sure anymore if thoughts are > happening in the brain. I have no idea. That what I feel happens in the part below or > around the brain. Not even necessarily inside the boarders of my body. > It all seems to happen simultaneously and only a tiny part is > remembered. > > Love Stefan It seems all one and ephemeral and not that at the same time. Love, Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
