Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2005 I have had memories and dreams but nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, compares to the intensity and reality of Ego's battle with words. Ego looked at the keyboard and the words he was writing and despair and misery overwhelmed him. He clicked on delete and then refused to write. Oh Krishna – I will not fight this terrible battle. Krishna: You shame me Arjuna. Ages ago when it came to fight and kill your relatives, friends and teachers in battle I told you that you had no choice. I told you it was your duty. I told you that there was nothing you could do not to fight. Now you complain about electronic words and tell me that you will no fight battles. Arjuna you disappoint me. Ego: But Krishna, thousands and even hundreds of thousands can die in epic wars because of the power of these words. Why Krishna these words could turn mother against child and child against parents, not only now but endlessly .. these words could destroy religions and society. Why these words can break the very backbone of society… Oh Krishna how can I go on? Krishna: Arjuna your anguish is for nothing. If words could turn mother against child, and child against parents, and society against society, then the world and indeed the universe could only be a better place when it is rid of such a disease that would allows words to destroy them. Ages ago I told you my true nature. But in those times of kingdoms and clans they could not understand " no doer. " And so I had to use examples of doers for my story about living like a non-doer that I AM and ALL IS. But today with technology and solar-systems and galaxies and universes and physics and relativity the non-doer is alive like never before to explain the utter ignorance that imaginary- doers need to be doers. So Arjuna write what your birth and karma demands. You can do nothing to prevent karma from swinging like a pendulum from good to evil. To try and do anything to change karma by not-writing -- what has already been written -- is to fool yourself into thinking that you are a doer when there is no doer. So write with reckless abandon the words that must be written for maya and its karma. And waste no effort or time about needless worry and concern about the lives and deaths and societies and indeed planets and galaxies that that have already come and gone … And to think that by not-doing, not-writing, planets will not come and go is the pinnacle of ignorance, because there is no doer that can make a difference, because it has never happened. And what has never happened, fiction, has to work like it has already happened. And so with these words the imaginary-doer called Ego writes, with Krishna's reckless abandon. =-= ( Shri Foolnothing is Ego's guru. And according to society this " Shri " is a " fool " because he thinks thoughts come out of nothing to return into nothing to be the exact same Nothing that he is.. Thus the name " fool –nothing " , Shri Foolnothing. ) Mr. Ego: Shri Foolnothing, In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna told Arjuna… Shri Foolnothing: But I am Krishna. Ego: But what about the Bhagavad Gita? Shri Krishna: What I told Arjuna was not written. And what was written thousands of years later was written for the pendulum called karma, time. You and I are not even illusion, dearest Ego. Compared to the intensity and utter Awakeness of the Unified Field we are pure and utter fiction. The only message in the Gita that time, karma, did not change is the Reality of the non doer. Dearest Ego, there is no doer. Ego: Why do you call time karma? Krishna: In fiction there is no time, only the timeless and changeless Now. Time is pure fiction. Time is just the pendulum that swings from one duality to the other, like past to future, from good to evil, from birth to death; and with memory, the future back into the past. This swinging of this Pendulum of dualities is karma, time. In fiction, the timeless and changeless Now is maya. Ego: What is the final-step to realization? Krishna: The awareness that there is no difference between your psychopath and your Awake saint. Ego: but Krishna how … how… YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NUTS! Krishna: that is why I'm Awake and you are utterly blind to the pure fiction that you are. Ego: But Krishna can you explain this blindness? Krishna: Dearest Ego, what is a psychopath? Ego: A psychopath is a person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse. Krishna: now take the doer out of that definition. Ego: a person with an antisocial personality disorder without empathy or remorse. Krishna: and which two imaginary-doers personify antisocial- personality without empathy or remorse. Ego: Hitler and Stalin? Krishna: Yes, and also Buddha and Jesus. Buddha, born a prince, abandoned his royalty to become a penniless beggar. This has to define the ultimate psychopath. What he did and said, and what all the other psychopaths did and said, cannot matter because there is no doer that can do and say… . Ego: But Krishna, Buddha and Jesus cared for the poor and sick and Hitler and Stalin did not? Krishna: Christ and Buddha cared as much for the sinner as they did for the poor and sick. And if the poor and sick mattered more to them than the sinner, then they would have spent their life on a crusade to punish and even slaughter evil to save good, but those roles I played as your Hitler and Stalin… and also Roosevelt and Churchill… . Yes, dearest Ego, Reality lies in the Eternal. There is no slayer nor slain. You were never born so you can never die. And so what an imaginary-doer thinks he does cannot matter – be it the miracles of a saint or the slaughter of a soldier or psychopath. Any Ego that Realizes that the timeless Unified Field plays all the roles of all the imaginary-doers perfectly -- be it the role of a beggar or king, be it a saint or psychopath -- such an Ego is Realized to the timeless and changeless nature, that I AM, YOU ARE and ALL IS, this Unified Field. This Awareness, my dearest Ego -- that I play all the roles, and do so perfectly -- this Awareness or Awakeness is the final step to being Awake. Which is just the same as being dead. -- thoughts from Nothing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Gene Polotas " <semmin@e...> wrote: > I have had memories and dreams but nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY > NOTHING, compares to the intensity and reality of Ego's battle > with words. > > Ego looked at the keyboard and the words he was writing and despair > and misery overwhelmed him. > > He clicked on delete and then refused to write. > > Oh Krishna – I will not fight this terrible battle. > > Krishna: You shame me Arjuna. Ages ago when it came to fight and > kill your relatives, friends and teachers in battle I told you that > you had no choice. I told you it was your duty. I told you that there > was nothing you could do not to fight. Now you complain about > electronic words and tell me that you will no fight battles. Arjuna > you disappoint me. > > Ego: But Krishna, thousands and even hundreds of thousands can die > in epic wars because of the power of these words. > Why Krishna these words could turn mother against child and child > against parents, not only now but endlessly .. these words could > destroy religions and society. Why these words can break the very > backbone of society… Oh Krishna how can I go on? > > Krishna: Arjuna your anguish is for nothing. If words could turn > mother against child, and child against parents, and society against > society, then the world and indeed the universe could only be a > better place when it is rid of such a disease that would allows words > to destroy them. > Ages ago I told you my true nature. But in those times of kingdoms > and clans they could not understand " no doer. " And so I had > to use examples of doers for my story about living like a non- doer > that I AM and ALL IS. But today with technology and solar- systems > and galaxies and universes and physics and relativity the non-doer is > alive like never before to explain the utter ignorance that imaginary- > doers need to be doers. > > So Arjuna write what your birth and karma demands. You can do nothing > to prevent karma from swinging like a pendulum from good to evil. To > try and do anything to change karma by not-writing -- what has > already been written -- is to fool yourself into thinking that you > are a doer when there is no doer. > > So write with reckless abandon the words that must be written for > maya and its karma. And waste no effort or time about needless worry > and concern about the lives and deaths and societies and indeed > planets and galaxies that that have already come and gone … And > to think that by not-doing, not-writing, planets will not come and > go is the pinnacle of ignorance, because there is no doer that can > make a difference, because it has never happened. And what has never > happened, fiction, has to work like it has already happened. > > And so with these words the imaginary-doer called Ego writes, with > Krishna's reckless abandon. > > =-= > ( Shri Foolnothing is Ego's guru. And according to society > this " Shri " is a " fool " because he thinks thoughts > come out of nothing to return into nothing to be the exact same > Nothing that he is.. Thus the name " fool –nothing " , Shri > Foolnothing. ) > > Mr. Ego: Shri Foolnothing, In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna told > Arjuna… > Shri Foolnothing: But I am Krishna. > Ego: But what about the Bhagavad Gita? > > Shri Krishna: What I told Arjuna was not written. And what was > written thousands of years later was written for the pendulum called > karma, time. You and I are not even illusion, dearest Ego. Compared > to the intensity and utter Awakeness of the Unified Field we are > pure and utter fiction. The only message in the Gita that time, > karma, did not change is the Reality of the non doer. Dearest Ego, > there is no doer. > > Ego: Why do you call time karma? > Krishna: In fiction there is no time, only the timeless and > changeless Now. Time is pure fiction. Time is just the pendulum > that swings from one duality to the other, like past to future, from > good to evil, from birth to death; and with memory, the future back > into the past. This swinging of this Pendulum of dualities is karma, > time. In fiction, the timeless and changeless Now is maya. > > Ego: What is the final-step to realization? > > Krishna: The awareness that there is no difference between your > psychopath and your Awake saint. > > Ego: but Krishna how … how… YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NUTS! > Krishna: that is why I'm Awake and you are utterly blind to the > pure fiction that you are. > > Ego: But Krishna can you explain this blindness? > Krishna: Dearest Ego, what is a psychopath? > Ego: A psychopath is a person with an antisocial personality > disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral > behavior without empathy or remorse. > Krishna: now take the doer out of that definition. > > Ego: a person with an antisocial personality disorder without empathy > or remorse. > Krishna: and which two imaginary-doers personify antisocial- > personality without empathy or remorse. > Ego: Hitler and Stalin? > > Krishna: Yes, and also Buddha and Jesus. Buddha, born a prince, > abandoned his royalty to become a penniless beggar. This has to > define the ultimate psychopath. What he did and said, and what all > the other psychopaths did and said, cannot matter because there is > no doer that can do and say… . > Ego: But Krishna, Buddha and Jesus cared for the poor and sick and > Hitler and Stalin did not? > Krishna: Christ and Buddha cared as much for the sinner as they did > for the poor and sick. And if the poor and sick mattered more to them > than the sinner, then they would have spent their life on a crusade > to punish and even slaughter evil to save good, but those roles I > played as your Hitler and Stalin… and also Roosevelt and > Churchill… . > Yes, dearest Ego, Reality lies in the Eternal. There is no slayer > nor slain. You were never born so you can never die. And so what an > imaginary-doer thinks he does cannot matter – be it the miracles > of a saint or the slaughter of a soldier or psychopath. > Any Ego that Realizes that the timeless Unified Field plays all the > roles of all the imaginary-doers perfectly -- be it the role of a > beggar or king, be it a saint or psychopath -- such an Ego is > Realized to the timeless and changeless nature, that I AM, YOU ARE > and ALL IS, this Unified Field. > > This Awareness, my dearest Ego -- that I play all the roles, and do > so perfectly -- this Awareness or Awakeness is the final step to > being Awake. Which is just the same as being dead. > > -- thoughts from Nothing Nice. But I would like this Unified Field to play a bit more happy roles. So much suffering in the world (of Maya). Cannot someone tell this Unified Field to change the beat, so to speak? Maya Upgraded, Version 2.0, or something. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Monday, May 23, 2005 7:52 AM Re: The Ego's Gita Nisargadatta , " Gene Polotas " <semmin@e...> wrote: > I have had memories and dreams but nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY > NOTHING, compares to the intensity and reality of Ego's battle > with words. > > Ego looked at the keyboard and the words he was writing and despair > and misery overwhelmed him. > > He clicked on delete and then refused to write. > > Oh Krishna - I will not fight this terrible battle. > > Krishna: You shame me Arjuna. Ages ago when it came to fight and > kill your relatives, friends and teachers in battle I told you that > you had no choice. I told you it was your duty. I told you that there > was nothing you could do not to fight. Now you complain about > electronic words and tell me that you will no fight battles. Arjuna > you disappoint me. > > Ego: But Krishna, thousands and even hundreds of thousands can die > in epic wars because of the power of these words. > Why Krishna these words could turn mother against child and child > against parents, not only now but endlessly .. these words could > destroy religions and society. Why these words can break the very > backbone of society. Oh Krishna how can I go on? > > Krishna: Arjuna your anguish is for nothing. If words could turn > mother against child, and child against parents, and society against > society, then the world and indeed the universe could only be a > better place when it is rid of such a disease that would allows words > to destroy them. > Ages ago I told you my true nature. But in those times of kingdoms > and clans they could not understand " no doer. " And so I had > to use examples of doers for my story about living like a non- doer > that I AM and ALL IS. But today with technology and solar- systems > and galaxies and universes and physics and relativity the non-doer is > alive like never before to explain the utter ignorance that imaginary- > doers need to be doers. > > So Arjuna write what your birth and karma demands. You can do nothing > to prevent karma from swinging like a pendulum from good to evil. To > try and do anything to change karma by not-writing -- what has > already been written -- is to fool yourself into thinking that you > are a doer when there is no doer. > > So write with reckless abandon the words that must be written for > maya and its karma. And waste no effort or time about needless worry > and concern about the lives and deaths and societies and indeed > planets and galaxies that that have already come and gone . And > to think that by not-doing, not-writing, planets will not come and > go is the pinnacle of ignorance, because there is no doer that can > make a difference, because it has never happened. And what has never > happened, fiction, has to work like it has already happened. > > And so with these words the imaginary-doer called Ego writes, with > Krishna's reckless abandon. > > =-= > ( Shri Foolnothing is Ego's guru. And according to society > this " Shri " is a " fool " because he thinks thoughts > come out of nothing to return into nothing to be the exact same > Nothing that he is.. Thus the name " fool -nothing " , Shri > Foolnothing. ) > > Mr. Ego: Shri Foolnothing, In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna told > Arjuna. > Shri Foolnothing: But I am Krishna. > Ego: But what about the Bhagavad Gita? > > Shri Krishna: What I told Arjuna was not written. And what was > written thousands of years later was written for the pendulum called > karma, time. You and I are not even illusion, dearest Ego. Compared > to the intensity and utter Awakeness of the Unified Field we are > pure and utter fiction. The only message in the Gita that time, > karma, did not change is the Reality of the non doer. Dearest Ego, > there is no doer. > > Ego: Why do you call time karma? > Krishna: In fiction there is no time, only the timeless and > changeless Now. Time is pure fiction. Time is just the pendulum > that swings from one duality to the other, like past to future, from > good to evil, from birth to death; and with memory, the future back > into the past. This swinging of this Pendulum of dualities is karma, > time. In fiction, the timeless and changeless Now is maya. > > Ego: What is the final-step to realization? > > Krishna: The awareness that there is no difference between your > psychopath and your Awake saint. > > Ego: but Krishna how . how. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NUTS! > Krishna: that is why I'm Awake and you are utterly blind to the > pure fiction that you are. > > Ego: But Krishna can you explain this blindness? > Krishna: Dearest Ego, what is a psychopath? > Ego: A psychopath is a person with an antisocial personality > disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral > behavior without empathy or remorse. > Krishna: now take the doer out of that definition. > > Ego: a person with an antisocial personality disorder without empathy > or remorse. > Krishna: and which two imaginary-doers personify antisocial- > personality without empathy or remorse. > Ego: Hitler and Stalin? > > Krishna: Yes, and also Buddha and Jesus. Buddha, born a prince, > abandoned his royalty to become a penniless beggar. This has to > define the ultimate psychopath. What he did and said, and what all > the other psychopaths did and said, cannot matter because there is > no doer that can do and say. . > Ego: But Krishna, Buddha and Jesus cared for the poor and sick and > Hitler and Stalin did not? > Krishna: Christ and Buddha cared as much for the sinner as they did > for the poor and sick. And if the poor and sick mattered more to them > than the sinner, then they would have spent their life on a crusade > to punish and even slaughter evil to save good, but those roles I > played as your Hitler and Stalin. and also Roosevelt and > Churchill. . > Yes, dearest Ego, Reality lies in the Eternal. There is no slayer > nor slain. You were never born so you can never die. And so what an > imaginary-doer thinks he does cannot matter - be it the miracles > of a saint or the slaughter of a soldier or psychopath. > Any Ego that Realizes that the timeless Unified Field plays all the > roles of all the imaginary-doers perfectly -- be it the role of a > beggar or king, be it a saint or psychopath -- such an Ego is > Realized to the timeless and changeless nature, that I AM, YOU ARE > and ALL IS, this Unified Field. > > This Awareness, my dearest Ego -- that I play all the roles, and do > so perfectly -- this Awareness or Awakeness is the final step to > being Awake. Which is just the same as being dead. > > -- thoughts from Nothing Nice. But I would like this Unified Field to play a bit more happy roles. So much suffering in the world (of Maya). Cannot someone tell this Unified Field to change the beat, so to speak? Maya Upgraded, Version 2.0, or something. al. I Am dissolves in Maya as Maya dissolves in I Am. The breath breathing Breathe... al. upgraded.......8.0 Turya or 8.0 Turya doing al.--an enjoyment from nothing... ** 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 May 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 23, 2005 7:52 AM > Re: The Ego's Gita > > > Nisargadatta , " Gene Polotas " <semmin@e...> > wrote: > > I have had memories and dreams but nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY > > NOTHING, compares to the intensity and reality of Ego's battle > > with words. > > > > Ego looked at the keyboard and the words he was writing and > despair > > and misery overwhelmed him. > > > > He clicked on delete and then refused to write. > > > > Oh Krishna - I will not fight this terrible battle. > > > > Krishna: You shame me Arjuna. Ages ago when it came to fight and > > kill your relatives, friends and teachers in battle I told you > that > > you had no choice. I told you it was your duty. I told you that > there > > was nothing you could do not to fight. Now you complain about > > electronic words and tell me that you will no fight battles. > Arjuna > > you disappoint me. > > > > Ego: But Krishna, thousands and even hundreds of thousands can > die > > in epic wars because of the power of these words. > > Why Krishna these words could turn mother against child and child > > against parents, not only now but endlessly .. these words could > > destroy religions and society. Why these words can break the very > > backbone of society. Oh Krishna how can I go on? > > > > Krishna: Arjuna your anguish is for nothing. If words could turn > > mother against child, and child against parents, and society > against > > society, then the world and indeed the universe could only be a > > better place when it is rid of such a disease that would allows > words > > to destroy them. > > Ages ago I told you my true nature. But in those times of > kingdoms > > and clans they could not understand " no doer. " And so I had > > to use examples of doers for my story about living like a non- > doer > > that I AM and ALL IS. But today with technology and solar- > systems > > and galaxies and universes and physics and relativity the non- doer > is > > alive like never before to explain the utter ignorance that > imaginary- > > doers need to be doers. > > > > So Arjuna write what your birth and karma demands. You can do > nothing > > to prevent karma from swinging like a pendulum from good to evil. > To > > try and do anything to change karma by not-writing -- what has > > already been written -- is to fool yourself into thinking that > you > > are a doer when there is no doer. > > > > So write with reckless abandon the words that must be written for > > maya and its karma. And waste no effort or time about needless > worry > > and concern about the lives and deaths and societies and indeed > > planets and galaxies that that have already come and gone . And > > to think that by not-doing, not-writing, planets will not come > and > > go is the pinnacle of ignorance, because there is no doer that can > > make a difference, because it has never happened. And what has > never > > happened, fiction, has to work like it has already happened. > > > > And so with these words the imaginary-doer called Ego writes, > with > > Krishna's reckless abandon. > > > > =-= > > ( Shri Foolnothing is Ego's guru. And according to society > > this " Shri " is a " fool " because he thinks thoughts > > come out of nothing to return into nothing to be the exact same > > Nothing that he is.. Thus the name " fool -nothing " , Shri > > Foolnothing. ) > > > > Mr. Ego: Shri Foolnothing, In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna told > > Arjuna. > > Shri Foolnothing: But I am Krishna. > > Ego: But what about the Bhagavad Gita? > > > > Shri Krishna: What I told Arjuna was not written. And what was > > written thousands of years later was written for the pendulum > called > > karma, time. You and I are not even illusion, dearest Ego. > Compared > > to the intensity and utter Awakeness of the Unified Field we are > > pure and utter fiction. The only message in the Gita that time, > > karma, did not change is the Reality of the non doer. Dearest > Ego, > > there is no doer. > > > > Ego: Why do you call time karma? > > Krishna: In fiction there is no time, only the timeless and > > changeless Now. Time is pure fiction. Time is just the pendulum > > that swings from one duality to the other, like past to future, > from > > good to evil, from birth to death; and with memory, the future > back > > into the past. This swinging of this Pendulum of dualities is > karma, > > time. In fiction, the timeless and changeless Now is maya. > > > > Ego: What is the final-step to realization? > > > > Krishna: The awareness that there is no difference between your > > psychopath and your Awake saint. > > > > Ego: but Krishna how . how. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NUTS! > > Krishna: that is why I'm Awake and you are utterly blind to the > > pure fiction that you are. > > > > Ego: But Krishna can you explain this blindness? > > Krishna: Dearest Ego, what is a psychopath? > > Ego: A psychopath is a person with an antisocial personality > > disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral > > behavior without empathy or remorse. > > Krishna: now take the doer out of that definition. > > > > Ego: a person with an antisocial personality disorder without > empathy > > or remorse. > > Krishna: and which two imaginary-doers personify antisocial- > > personality without empathy or remorse. > > Ego: Hitler and Stalin? > > > > Krishna: Yes, and also Buddha and Jesus. Buddha, born a prince, > > abandoned his royalty to become a penniless beggar. This has to > > define the ultimate psychopath. What he did and said, and what > all > > the other psychopaths did and said, cannot matter because there > is > > no doer that can do and say. . > > Ego: But Krishna, Buddha and Jesus cared for the poor and sick > and > > Hitler and Stalin did not? > > Krishna: Christ and Buddha cared as much for the sinner as they > did > > for the poor and sick. And if the poor and sick mattered more to > them > > than the sinner, then they would have spent their life on a > crusade > > to punish and even slaughter evil to save good, but those roles I > > played as your Hitler and Stalin. and also Roosevelt and > > Churchill. . > > Yes, dearest Ego, Reality lies in the Eternal. There is no slayer > > nor slain. You were never born so you can never die. And so what > an > > imaginary-doer thinks he does cannot matter - be it the miracles > > of a saint or the slaughter of a soldier or psychopath. > > Any Ego that Realizes that the timeless Unified Field plays all > the > > roles of all the imaginary-doers perfectly -- be it the role of > a > > beggar or king, be it a saint or psychopath -- such an Ego is > > Realized to the timeless and changeless nature, that I AM, YOU > ARE > > and ALL IS, this Unified Field. > > > > This Awareness, my dearest Ego -- that I play all the roles, and > do > > so perfectly -- this Awareness or Awakeness is the final step > to > > being Awake. Which is just the same as being dead. > > > > -- thoughts from Nothing > > > Nice. But I would like this Unified Field to play a bit more happy > roles. So much suffering in the world (of Maya). Cannot someone tell > this Unified Field to change the beat, so to speak? Maya Upgraded, > Version 2.0, or something. > > al. > > > I Am dissolves in Maya as Maya dissolves in I Am. > > The breath breathing Breathe... > > al. upgraded.......8.0 Turya > > or > > 8.0 Turya doing al.--an enjoyment from nothing... > Thanks Anna! Version 8.0, that sounds more in line with what I expect from limitless being. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > anders_lindman > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, May 23, 2005 7:52 AM > > Re: The Ego's Gita > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Gene Polotas " > <semmin@e...> > > wrote: > > > I have had memories and dreams but nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY > > > NOTHING, compares to the intensity and reality of Ego's battle > > > with words. > > > > > > Ego looked at the keyboard and the words he was writing and > > despair > > > and misery overwhelmed him. > > > > > > He clicked on delete and then refused to write. > > > > > > Oh Krishna - I will not fight this terrible battle. > > > > > > Krishna: You shame me Arjuna. Ages ago when it came to fight > and > > > kill your relatives, friends and teachers in battle I told > you > > that > > > you had no choice. I told you it was your duty. I told you > that > > there > > > was nothing you could do not to fight. Now you complain about > > > electronic words and tell me that you will no fight battles. > > Arjuna > > > you disappoint me. > > > > > > Ego: But Krishna, thousands and even hundreds of thousands > can > > die > > > in epic wars because of the power of these words. > > > Why Krishna these words could turn mother against child and > child > > > against parents, not only now but endlessly .. these words > could > > > destroy religions and society. Why these words can break the > very > > > backbone of society. Oh Krishna how can I go on? > > > > > > Krishna: Arjuna your anguish is for nothing. If words could > turn > > > mother against child, and child against parents, and society > > against > > > society, then the world and indeed the universe could only be > a > > > better place when it is rid of such a disease that would > allows > > words > > > to destroy them. > > > Ages ago I told you my true nature. But in those times of > > kingdoms > > > and clans they could not understand " no doer. " And so I had > > > to use examples of doers for my story about living like a non- > > doer > > > that I AM and ALL IS. But today with technology and solar- > > systems > > > and galaxies and universes and physics and relativity the non- > doer > > is > > > alive like never before to explain the utter ignorance that > > imaginary- > > > doers need to be doers. > > > > > > So Arjuna write what your birth and karma demands. You can do > > nothing > > > to prevent karma from swinging like a pendulum from good to > evil. > > To > > > try and do anything to change karma by not-writing -- what > has > > > already been written -- is to fool yourself into thinking > that > > you > > > are a doer when there is no doer. > > > > > > So write with reckless abandon the words that must be written > for > > > maya and its karma. And waste no effort or time about > needless > > worry > > > and concern about the lives and deaths and societies and > indeed > > > planets and galaxies that that have already come and gone . > And > > > to think that by not-doing, not-writing, planets will not > come > > and > > > go is the pinnacle of ignorance, because there is no doer that > can > > > make a difference, because it has never happened. And what has > > never > > > happened, fiction, has to work like it has already happened. > > > > > > And so with these words the imaginary-doer called Ego writes, > > with > > > Krishna's reckless abandon. > > > > > > =-= > > > ( Shri Foolnothing is Ego's guru. And according to society > > > this " Shri " is a " fool " because he thinks thoughts > > > come out of nothing to return into nothing to be the exact > same > > > Nothing that he is.. Thus the name " fool -nothing " , Shri > > > Foolnothing. ) > > > > > > Mr. Ego: Shri Foolnothing, In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna told > > > Arjuna. > > > Shri Foolnothing: But I am Krishna. > > > Ego: But what about the Bhagavad Gita? > > > > > > Shri Krishna: What I told Arjuna was not written. And what was > > > written thousands of years later was written for the pendulum > > called > > > karma, time. You and I are not even illusion, dearest Ego. > > Compared > > > to the intensity and utter Awakeness of the Unified Field we > are > > > pure and utter fiction. The only message in the Gita that > time, > > > karma, did not change is the Reality of the non doer. > Dearest > > Ego, > > > there is no doer. > > > > > > Ego: Why do you call time karma? > > > Krishna: In fiction there is no time, only the timeless and > > > changeless Now. Time is pure fiction. Time is just the > pendulum > > > that swings from one duality to the other, like past to > future, > > from > > > good to evil, from birth to death; and with memory, the > future > > back > > > into the past. This swinging of this Pendulum of dualities is > > karma, > > > time. In fiction, the timeless and changeless Now is maya. > > > > > > Ego: What is the final-step to realization? > > > > > > Krishna: The awareness that there is no difference between > your > > > psychopath and your Awake saint. > > > > > > Ego: but Krishna how . how. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NUTS! > > > Krishna: that is why I'm Awake and you are utterly blind to the > > > pure fiction that you are. > > > > > > Ego: But Krishna can you explain this blindness? > > > Krishna: Dearest Ego, what is a psychopath? > > > Ego: A psychopath is a person with an antisocial personality > > > disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or > amoral > > > behavior without empathy or remorse. > > > Krishna: now take the doer out of that definition. > > > > > > Ego: a person with an antisocial personality disorder without > > empathy > > > or remorse. > > > Krishna: and which two imaginary-doers personify antisocial- > > > personality without empathy or remorse. > > > Ego: Hitler and Stalin? > > > > > > Krishna: Yes, and also Buddha and Jesus. Buddha, born a > prince, > > > abandoned his royalty to become a penniless beggar. This has > to > > > define the ultimate psychopath. What he did and said, and > what > > all > > > the other psychopaths did and said, cannot matter because > there > > is > > > no doer that can do and say. . > > > Ego: But Krishna, Buddha and Jesus cared for the poor and > sick > > and > > > Hitler and Stalin did not? > > > Krishna: Christ and Buddha cared as much for the sinner as > they > > did > > > for the poor and sick. And if the poor and sick mattered more > to > > them > > > than the sinner, then they would have spent their life on a > > crusade > > > to punish and even slaughter evil to save good, but those > roles I > > > played as your Hitler and Stalin. and also Roosevelt and > > > Churchill. . > > > Yes, dearest Ego, Reality lies in the Eternal. There is no > slayer > > > nor slain. You were never born so you can never die. And so > what > > an > > > imaginary-doer thinks he does cannot matter - be it the > miracles > > > of a saint or the slaughter of a soldier or psychopath. > > > Any Ego that Realizes that the timeless Unified Field plays > all > > the > > > roles of all the imaginary-doers perfectly -- be it the role > of > > a > > > beggar or king, be it a saint or psychopath -- such an Ego is > > > Realized to the timeless and changeless nature, that I AM, > YOU > > ARE > > > and ALL IS, this Unified Field. > > > > > > This Awareness, my dearest Ego -- that I play all the roles, > and > > do > > > so perfectly -- this Awareness or Awakeness is the final > step > > to > > > being Awake. Which is just the same as being dead. > > > > > > -- thoughts from Nothing > > > > > > Nice. But I would like this Unified Field to play a bit more > happy > > roles. So much suffering in the world (of Maya). Cannot someone > tell > > this Unified Field to change the beat, so to speak? Maya > Upgraded, > > Version 2.0, or something. > > > > al. > > > > > > I Am dissolves in Maya as Maya dissolves in I Am. > > > > The breath breathing Breathe... > > > > al. upgraded.......8.0 Turya > > > > or > > > > 8.0 Turya doing al.--an enjoyment from nothing... > > > > > Thanks Anna! > > Version 8.0, that sounds more in line with what I expect from > limitless being. > > al. In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > .... > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > fuzzie In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > ... > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > fuzzie > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > al. That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only this: limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It simply is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > al. > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only this: > limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It simply is what it > is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > fuzzie The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it drop out? These are questions for clarifying the statements above making it clear what may be taken for granted. Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, ego as sense of self and identity, ego as individual consciousness, or transient consciousness, the temporary conscious thinking subject, the impression of personal doership, the awareness of the body and mind, the conscious part of the body, serially organized stimulus response brain events, a temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the conscious experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end of something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its foundations, and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is it disappears without a trace, or it remains functional but is empty of content, it never was and it is realized....., You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > al. > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only this: > limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It simply is what it > is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > fuzzie Sound very simple. Thanks fuzzie. I think there is truth in what you are saying here. As Nukunu said: " You keep a little bit of the ego left so that you can enjoy the Beloved " , and " You _must_ become a nothing " . Or Vernon Howard: " ...that means you have to get rid of you.....God cannot come in because you are occupying the space... " , and " ....Right now there is you and there is God....never the twain shall meet.....you don't like God at all.....you are at the downhill side of God.....but you can see the condition you are in and not like being there... " , and " ...and then you still live in this zoo- like existence, with all those sneaky creatures out there....BUT YOU ARE FREEEE.....FROM EVERERYONE OF THE CREATURES OF THE NIGHT, BECAUSE YOU NO LONGER LIVE IN THE NIGHT........_NOT_........_ANY_........_MOOORE_! " :-) al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > al. > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only this: > > limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It simply is what it > > is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it drop > out? These are questions for clarifying the statements above making it > clear what may be taken for granted. > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, ego > as sense of self and identity, ego as individual consciousness, or > transient consciousness, the temporary conscious thinking subject, the > impression of personal doership, the awareness of the body and mind, > the conscious part of the body, serially organized stimulus response > brain events, a temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the > conscious experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end of > something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its foundations, > and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is it disappears > without a trace, or it remains functional but is empty of content, it > never was and it is realized....., > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > Lewis >============================ Alias Lewis When I take dualities that only I can have – BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER – and then project these dualities onto imaginary others so that I can then beat them to death – both the dualities and others – then this is just my ego exercising the futility it needs to be an ego. Lewis you are just MY ego exercising futility. -- just thoughts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Gene Polotas " <semmin@e...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " > <fuzzie_wuz> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only this: > > > limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It simply is what > it > > > is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it drop > > out? These are questions for clarifying the statements above making > it > > clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, ego > > as sense of self and identity, ego as individual consciousness, or > > transient consciousness, the temporary conscious thinking subject, > the > > impression of personal doership, the awareness of the body and mind, > > the conscious part of the body, serially organized stimulus response > > brain events, a temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, > the > > conscious experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end of > > something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its > foundations, > > and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is it disappears > > without a trace, or it remains functional but is empty of content, > it > > never was and it is realized....., > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > Lewis > >============================ > Alias Lewis > When I take dualities that only I can have – BECAUSE THERE IS NO > OTHER – and then project these dualities onto imaginary others so > that I can then beat them to death – both the dualities and others – > then this is just my ego exercising the futility it needs to be an > ego. > Lewis you are just MY ego exercising futility. > > -- just thoughts. Please beat YOUR ego to death as it exercises futility. It is entertainment par excellence, unmatched. And I will assist YOU in any way in beating YOUR ego to death. What sort of device is most handy for YOU for beating to death YOUR ego. What do YOU prefer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > al. > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only this: > > limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It simply is what it > > is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it drop > out? These are questions for clarifying the statements above making it > clear what may be taken for granted. > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, ego > as sense of self and identity, ego as individual consciousness, or > transient consciousness, the temporary conscious thinking subject, the > impression of personal doership, the awareness of the body and mind, > the conscious part of the body, serially organized stimulus response > brain events, a temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the > conscious experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end of > something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its foundations, > and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is it disappears > without a trace, or it remains functional but is empty of content, it > never was and it is realized....., > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > Lewis LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is only presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking down the road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of sitting in a chair while reading this, when the " me " drops out, it is seen by no one that everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. When the " me " drops away, there is only the stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: ***SNIP*** > > > ... > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > al. > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only this: > > limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It simply is what > it > > is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > Sound very simple. Thanks fuzzie. I think there is truth in what you > are saying here. As Nukunu said: " You keep a little bit of the ego > left so that you can enjoy the Beloved " , and " You _must_ become a > nothing " . Or Vernon Howard: " ...that means you have to get rid of > you.....God cannot come in because you are occupying the space... " , > and " ....Right now there is you and there is God....never the twain > shall meet.....you don't like God at all.....you are at the downhill > side of God.....but you can see the condition you are in and not > like being there... " , and " ...and then you still live in this zoo- > like existence, with all those sneaky creatures out there....BUT YOU > ARE FREEEE.....FROM EVERERYONE OF THE CREATURES OF THE NIGHT, > BECAUSE YOU NO LONGER LIVE IN THE > NIGHT........_NOT_........_ANY_........_MOOORE_! " :-) > > > al. Exactly, Anders. There is no need to kill the ego. That would be the ego trying to kill it's self. That's silly. Just let the ego fall away and there is being in the present, which is where it's at. When the " me " falls away, everything is what it is in complete perfection. The sense of " me " , the ego, will still be part of the body/mind complex. But, it will no longer be dominant. When the ego drops away and presence is enjoyed, the ego is put in it's place and harmony prevails, even in chaos. fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only this: > > > limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It simply is what it > > > is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it drop > > out? These are questions for clarifying the statements above making it > > clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, ego > > as sense of self and identity, ego as individual consciousness, or > > transient consciousness, the temporary conscious thinking subject, the > > impression of personal doership, the awareness of the body and mind, > > the conscious part of the body, serially organized stimulus response > > brain events, a temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the > > conscious experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end of > > something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its foundations, > > and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is it disappears > > without a trace, or it remains functional but is empty of content, it > > never was and it is realized....., > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > Lewis > > > LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. > > When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. > Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is only > presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking down the > road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of sitting in a > chair while reading this, when the " me " drops out, it is seen by no > one that everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. > When the " me " drops away, there is only the stillness of presence > reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. > > fuzzie Oh yes, it was quite funny. Hahahahaha!....... Now that you did your homework as was needed, what is funny is the " ego " is now equivalent to the " sense of me " that drops out. What is the " sense of me? " When and how does the sense of " me " drop out? Perhaps, after homework was done, the " sense of me " seems better, less troublesome thing to drop out, a sort of " ego-lite. " :-) Well, fuzzie, ambiguities still remain in your advice that is freely given. For example, here I am. This is me. Me is writing this. (Remember this dialogue?...). And me is here and there is " stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely impeded. " I do not see what or how the " sense of me, " has anything to do with the stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. It seems to me, that you just do what is always done and there you have it " everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. " What does the " sense of me " have to do with that? What is the dropping out of the " sense of me. " When and how does the " sense of me drop out. " What is it like before the " sense of me? " Is stillness of presence reflecting all things relatively or absolutely impeded when the " sense of me " has not dropped out? In my case, it makes does not compute. Me is here (hi y'all) and then it is not (bye y'all). Now for others, there may be some imaginings and experiences about what that " sense of me " refers to saying like, " Yeah, the " sense of me " that's gotta go. But like when is it going to drop out? I mean how does that happen and what is " me " like compared to all the stuff going on. " What is " me? " It is not always clear to the naive. So tell us clearly about the " sense of me " and the " sense of me " dropping out. It will help others to understand what you mean. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " > <fuzzie_wuz> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only this: > > > > limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It simply is what it > > > > is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it drop > > > out? These are questions for clarifying the statements above making it > > > clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, ego > > > as sense of self and identity, ego as individual consciousness, or > > > transient consciousness, the temporary conscious thinking subject, the > > > impression of personal doership, the awareness of the body and mind, > > > the conscious part of the body, serially organized stimulus response > > > brain events, a temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the > > > conscious experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end of > > > something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its foundations, > > > and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is it disappears > > > without a trace, or it remains functional but is empty of content, it > > > never was and it is realized....., > > > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. > > > > When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. > > Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is only > > presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking down the > > road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of sitting in a > > chair while reading this, when the " me " drops out, it is seen by no > > one that everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. > > When the " me " drops away, there is only the stillness of presence > > reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. > > > > fuzzie > > > Oh yes, it was quite funny. Hahahahaha!....... > > Now that you did your homework as was needed, what is funny is the > " ego " is now equivalent to the " sense of me " that drops out. What is > the " sense of me? " When and how does the sense of " me " drop out? > Perhaps, after homework was done, the " sense of me " seems better, less > troublesome thing to drop out, a sort of " ego-lite. " :-) > > Well, fuzzie, ambiguities still remain in your advice that is freely > given. > > For example, here I am. This is me. Me is writing this. (Remember this > dialogue?...). And me is here and there is " stillness of presence > reflecting all things absolutely impeded. " I do not see what or how > the " sense of me, " has anything to do with the stillness of presence > reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. It seems to me, that you > just do what is always done and there you have it " everything is > exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. " > > What does the " sense of me " have to do with that? What is the dropping > out of the " sense of me. " When and how does the " sense of me drop > out. " What is it like before the " sense of me? " Is stillness of > presence reflecting all things relatively or absolutely impeded when > the " sense of me " has not dropped out? > > In my case, it makes does not compute. Me is here (hi y'all) and then > it is not (bye y'all). Now for others, there may be some imaginings > and experiences about what that " sense of me " refers to saying like, > " Yeah, the " sense of me " that's gotta go. But like when is it going to > drop out? I mean how does that happen and what is " me " like compared > to all the stuff going on. " What is " me? " It is not always clear to > the naive. > > So tell us clearly about the " sense of me " and the " sense of me " > dropping out. It will help others to understand what you mean. > > Lewis See? I don't see " you " , Lewis. All I see is this sign of " you " . There's never any " you " there. It's always just a sign, a symbol. A complete abstraction. There is no " you " or " me " . It is just a fiction, a convention of language; nothing more. fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only > > > > this: limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It > > > > simply is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it > > > drop out? These are questions for clarifying the statements > > > above making it clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, > > > ego as sense of self and identity, ego as individual > > > consciousness, or transient consciousness, the temporary > > > conscious thinking subject, the impression of personal doership, > > > the awareness of the body and mind, the conscious part of the > > > body, serially organized stimulus response brain events, a > > > temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the conscious > > > experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end > > > of something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its > > > foundations, and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is > > > it disappears without a trace, or it remains functional but is > > > empty of content, it never was and it is realized....., > > > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. > > > > When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. > > Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is > > only presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking > > down the road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of > > sitting in a chair while reading this, when the " me " drops out, it > > is seen by no one that everything is exactly as it should be, as > > it is, perfect. When the " me " drops away, there is only the > > stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. > > > > fuzzie > > > Oh yes, it was quite funny. Hahahahaha!....... > > Now that you did your homework as was needed, what is funny is the > " ego " is now equivalent to the " sense of me " that drops out. What is > the " sense of me? " When and how does the sense of " me " drop out? > Perhaps, after homework was done, the " sense of me " seems better, > less troublesome thing to drop out, a sort of " ego-lite. " :-) > > Well, fuzzie, ambiguities still remain in your advice that is freely > given. > > For example, here I am. This is me. Me is writing this. (Remember > this dialogue?...). And me is here and there is " stillness of > presence reflecting all things absolutely impeded. " I do not see > what or how the " sense of me, " has anything to do with the stillness > of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. It seems to > me, that you just do what is always done and there you have it > " everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. " > > What does the " sense of me " have to do with that? What is the > dropping out of the " sense of me. " When and how does the " sense of > me drop out. " What is it like before the " sense of me? " Is stillness > of presence reflecting all things relatively or absolutely impeded > when the " sense of me " has not dropped out? > > In my case, it makes does not compute. Me is here (hi y'all) and > then it is not (bye y'all). Now for others, there may be some > imaginings and experiences about what that " sense of me " refers to > saying like, " Yeah, the " sense of me " that's gotta go. But like > when is it going to drop out? I mean how does that happen and what > is " me " like compared to all the stuff going on. " What is " me? " It > is not always clear to the naive. > > So tell us clearly about the " sense of me " and the " sense of me " > dropping out. It will help others to understand what you mean. > > Lewis See? I don't see " you " , Lewis. All I see is this sign of " you " . There's never any " you " there. It's always just a sign, a symbol. A complete abstraction. There is no " you " or " me " . It is just a fiction, a convention of language; nothing more. fuzzie " See " refers to the word " understanding, " fuzzie. Back to " me. " It seems safe to say that your use of " me " or the " sense of me " is that it is just a fiction, a convention of language. Now this defining is not entirely clear, for a fiction, though a figment or an illusion, may have a " substantial presence " like the undeniable perception that the sun rises in the east arcs overhead to set in the west. Tens of millions of farmers and business people, among millions of others, use that optical illusion to successfully guide their their daily plans and activities. In your missive to Anders you give some indication that the ego or the " sense of me " is part of the of the body/mind complex and that it has a " place: " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Exactly, Anders. There is no need to kill the ego. That would be the ego trying to kill it's self. That's silly. Just let the ego fall away and there is being in the present, which is where it's at. When the " me " falls away, everything is what it is in complete perfection. The sense of " me " , the ego, will still be part of the body/mind complex. But, it will no longer be dominant. When the ego drops away and presence is enjoyed, the ego is put in it's place and harmony prevails, even in chaos. fuzzie ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Most language conventions are associated with a complex of meanings, experiences, memories, perceptions, sensations and/or processes. Could you tell clearly describe what " me " is as a language convention and the relation between that fiction " me, " the mind/body complex, falling or dropping away and/or its non-dominance and place and presence. By doing so, we can see better what you mean by " sense of me " and " dropping out of the sense of me. " Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only > > > > > this: limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It > > > > > simply is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it > > > > drop out? These are questions for clarifying the statements > > > > above making it clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, > > > > ego as sense of self and identity, ego as individual > > > > consciousness, or transient consciousness, the temporary > > > > conscious thinking subject, the impression of personal doership, > > > > the awareness of the body and mind, the conscious part of the > > > > body, serially organized stimulus response brain events, a > > > > temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the conscious > > > > experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end > > > > of something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its > > > > foundations, and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is > > > > it disappears without a trace, or it remains functional but is > > > > empty of content, it never was and it is realized....., > > > > > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > > > > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. > > > > > > When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. > > > Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is > > > only presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking > > > down the road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of > > > sitting in a chair while reading this, when the " me " drops out, it > > > is seen by no one that everything is exactly as it should be, as > > > it is, perfect. When the " me " drops away, there is only the > > > stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > Oh yes, it was quite funny. Hahahahaha!....... > > > > Now that you did your homework as was needed, what is funny is the > > " ego " is now equivalent to the " sense of me " that drops out. What is > > the " sense of me? " When and how does the sense of " me " drop out? > > Perhaps, after homework was done, the " sense of me " seems better, > > less troublesome thing to drop out, a sort of " ego-lite. " :-) > > > > Well, fuzzie, ambiguities still remain in your advice that is freely > > given. > > > > For example, here I am. This is me. Me is writing this. (Remember > > this dialogue?...). And me is here and there is " stillness of > > presence reflecting all things absolutely impeded. " I do not see > > what or how the " sense of me, " has anything to do with the stillness > > of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. It seems to > > me, that you just do what is always done and there you have it > > " everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. " > > > > What does the " sense of me " have to do with that? What is the > > dropping out of the " sense of me. " When and how does the " sense of > > me drop out. " What is it like before the " sense of me? " Is stillness > > of presence reflecting all things relatively or absolutely impeded > > when the " sense of me " has not dropped out? > > > > In my case, it makes does not compute. Me is here (hi y'all) and > > then it is not (bye y'all). Now for others, there may be some > > imaginings and experiences about what that " sense of me " refers to > > saying like, " Yeah, the " sense of me " that's gotta go. But like > > when is it going to drop out? I mean how does that happen and what > > is " me " like compared to all the stuff going on. " What is " me? " It > > is not always clear to the naive. > > > > So tell us clearly about the " sense of me " and the " sense of me " > > dropping out. It will help others to understand what you mean. > > > > Lewis > > > See? I don't see " you " , Lewis. All I see is this sign of " you " . > There's never any " you " there. It's always just a sign, a symbol. A > complete abstraction. There is no " you " or " me " . It is just a fiction, > a convention of language; nothing more. > > fuzzie > > " See " refers to the word " understanding, " fuzzie. > > Back to " me. " > > It seems safe to say that your use of " me " or the " sense of me " is > that it is just a fiction, a convention of language. > > Now this defining is not entirely clear, for a fiction, though a > figment or an illusion, may have a " substantial presence " like the > undeniable perception that the sun rises in the east arcs overhead to > set in the west. Tens of millions of farmers and business people, > among millions of others, use that optical illusion to successfully > guide their their daily plans and activities. > > In your missive to Anders you give some indication that the ego or the > " sense of me " is part of the of the body/mind complex and that it has > a " place: " > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Exactly, Anders. There is no need to kill the ego. That would be the > ego trying to kill it's self. That's silly. Just let the ego fall away > and there is being in the present, which is where it's at. When the > " me " falls away, everything is what it is in complete perfection. > > The sense of " me " , the ego, will still be part of the body/mind > complex. But, it will no longer be dominant. When the ego drops away > and presence is enjoyed, the ego is put in it's place and harmony > prevails, even in chaos. > > fuzzie > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Most language conventions are associated with a complex of meanings, > experiences, memories, perceptions, sensations and/or processes. > > Could you tell clearly describe what " me " is as a language convention > and the relation between that fiction " me, " the mind/body complex, > falling or dropping away and/or its non-dominance and place and presence. > > By doing so, we can see better what you mean by " sense of me " and > " dropping out of the sense of me. " > > Lewis The " me " and the " you " are simply reference points invented in order to facilitate communication and to create mental maps (ideas). Drop the " me " fiction and there is only presence. Awareness is no longer confined to the limitations of the ego abstraction. It is literally a release, a liberation. It is simply dropping the belief in the self. Drop the belief in the self and a whole new vista opens up. fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only > > > > > this: limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It > > > > > simply is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it > > > > drop out? These are questions for clarifying the statements > > > > above making it clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, > > > > ego as sense of self and identity, ego as individual > > > > consciousness, or transient consciousness, the temporary > > > > conscious thinking subject, the impression of personal doership, > > > > the awareness of the body and mind, the conscious part of the > > > > body, serially organized stimulus response brain events, a > > > > temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the conscious > > > > experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end > > > > of something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its > > > > foundations, and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is > > > > it disappears without a trace, or it remains functional but is > > > > empty of content, it never was and it is realized....., > > > > > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > > > > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. > > > > > > When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. > > > Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is > > > only presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking > > > down the road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of > > > sitting in a chair while reading this, when the " me " drops out, it > > > is seen by no one that everything is exactly as it should be, as > > > it is, perfect. When the " me " drops away, there is only the > > > stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > Oh yes, it was quite funny. Hahahahaha!....... > > > > Now that you did your homework as was needed, what is funny is the > > " ego " is now equivalent to the " sense of me " that drops out. What is > > the " sense of me? " When and how does the sense of " me " drop out? > > Perhaps, after homework was done, the " sense of me " seems better, > > less troublesome thing to drop out, a sort of " ego-lite. " :-) > > > > Well, fuzzie, ambiguities still remain in your advice that is freely > > given. > > > > For example, here I am. This is me. Me is writing this. (Remember > > this dialogue?...). And me is here and there is " stillness of > > presence reflecting all things absolutely impeded. " I do not see > > what or how the " sense of me, " has anything to do with the stillness > > of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. It seems to > > me, that you just do what is always done and there you have it > > " everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. " > > > > What does the " sense of me " have to do with that? What is the > > dropping out of the " sense of me. " When and how does the " sense of > > me drop out. " What is it like before the " sense of me? " Is stillness > > of presence reflecting all things relatively or absolutely impeded > > when the " sense of me " has not dropped out? > > > > In my case, it makes does not compute. Me is here (hi y'all) and > > then it is not (bye y'all). Now for others, there may be some > > imaginings and experiences about what that " sense of me " refers to > > saying like, " Yeah, the " sense of me " that's gotta go. But like > > when is it going to drop out? I mean how does that happen and what > > is " me " like compared to all the stuff going on. " What is " me? " It > > is not always clear to the naive. > > > > So tell us clearly about the " sense of me " and the " sense of me " > > dropping out. It will help others to understand what you mean. > > > > Lewis > > > See? I don't see " you " , Lewis. All I see is this sign of " you " . > There's never any " you " there. It's always just a sign, a symbol. A > complete abstraction. There is no " you " or " me " . It is just a fiction, > a convention of language; nothing more. > > fuzzie > > " See " refers to the word " understanding, " fuzzie. > > Back to " me. " > > It seems safe to say that your use of " me " or the " sense of me " is > that it is just a fiction, a convention of language. > > Now this defining is not entirely clear, for a fiction, though a > figment or an illusion, may have a " substantial presence " like the > undeniable perception that the sun rises in the east arcs overhead to > set in the west. Tens of millions of farmers and business people, > among millions of others, use that optical illusion to successfully > guide their their daily plans and activities. > > In your missive to Anders you give some indication that the ego or the > " sense of me " is part of the of the body/mind complex and that it has > a " place: " > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Exactly, Anders. There is no need to kill the ego. That would be the > ego trying to kill it's self. That's silly. Just let the ego fall away > and there is being in the present, which is where it's at. When the > " me " falls away, everything is what it is in complete perfection. > > The sense of " me " , the ego, will still be part of the body/mind > complex. But, it will no longer be dominant. When the ego drops away > and presence is enjoyed, the ego is put in it's place and harmony > prevails, even in chaos. > > fuzzie > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Most language conventions are associated with a complex of meanings, > experiences, memories, perceptions, sensations and/or processes. > > Could you tell clearly describe what " me " is as a language convention > and the relation between that fiction " me, " the mind/body complex, > falling or dropping away and/or its non-dominance and place and presence. > > By doing so, we can see better what you mean by " sense of me " and > " dropping out of the sense of me. " > > Lewis The " me " and the " you " are simply reference points invented in order to facilitate communication and to create mental maps (ideas). Drop the " me " fiction and there is only presence. Awareness is no longer confined to the limitations of the ego abstraction. It is literally a release, a liberation. It is simply dropping the belief in the self. Drop the belief in the self and a whole new vista opens up. fuzzie Ok. The conceptual possibilties can be listted in order of appearance: Ego > Sense of Me > Fiction/language convention me/part of the body/mind complex > invented reference point to facilitate communication and create mental maps > ego abstraction > self. All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all refer to some thing that is left up to the imagination of the reader. Similarly ambiguous, there is without effort ego me loss: - when the ego drops out, when the the sense of me drops out, falling out or dropping out the me fiction and with effort ego me loss: - drop the me fiction, drop the belief in the self. All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all refer to some process that is left up to the imagination of the reader. By a happening in some unknown way and time or by unspecified direct effort or both there is a loss of " ego, " " sense of me, " " me fiction " , " belief in self, " and in this one gets enlightenment, release, liberation - " limitless being and awareness, " " stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. " Thank you fuzzie for the effort. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 > The " me " and the " you " are simply reference points invented in order > to facilitate communication and to create mental maps (ideas). > > Drop the " me " fiction and there is only presence. Awareness is no > longer confined to the limitations of the ego abstraction. It is > literally a release, a liberation. > > It is simply dropping the belief in the self. Drop the belief in the > self and a whole new vista opens up. > > > > fuzzie devi: reference points for what? a soul? an Atman the Self... fuzzy, usually the *presence* ..practicing the Presence..is a practice used to reach reality....i remember feeling the Presence of God, the Presence it was a very nice experience...but i knew that there was an even deeper Reality....do you see what i mean? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only > > > > > > this: limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It > > > > > > simply is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > > > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > > > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it > > > > > drop out? These are questions for clarifying the statements > > > > > above making it clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > > > > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > > > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, > > > > > ego as sense of self and identity, ego as individual > > > > > consciousness, or transient consciousness, the temporary > > > > > conscious thinking subject, the impression of personal doership, > > > > > the awareness of the body and mind, the conscious part of the > > > > > body, serially organized stimulus response brain events, a > > > > > temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the conscious > > > > > experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > > > > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end > > > > > of something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its > > > > > foundations, and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is > > > > > it disappears without a trace, or it remains functional but is > > > > > empty of content, it never was and it is realized....., > > > > > > > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > > > > > > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. > > > > > > > > When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. > > > > Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is > > > > only presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking > > > > down the road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of > > > > sitting in a chair while reading this, when the " me " drops out, it > > > > is seen by no one that everything is exactly as it should be, as > > > > it is, perfect. When the " me " drops away, there is only the > > > > stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > Oh yes, it was quite funny. Hahahahaha!....... > > > > > > Now that you did your homework as was needed, what is funny is the > > > " ego " is now equivalent to the " sense of me " that drops out. What is > > > the " sense of me? " When and how does the sense of " me " drop out? > > > Perhaps, after homework was done, the " sense of me " seems better, > > > less troublesome thing to drop out, a sort of " ego-lite. " :-) > > > > > > Well, fuzzie, ambiguities still remain in your advice that is freely > > > given. > > > > > > For example, here I am. This is me. Me is writing this. (Remember > > > this dialogue?...). And me is here and there is " stillness of > > > presence reflecting all things absolutely impeded. " I do not see > > > what or how the " sense of me, " has anything to do with the stillness > > > of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. It seems to > > > me, that you just do what is always done and there you have it > > > " everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. " > > > > > > What does the " sense of me " have to do with that? What is the > > > dropping out of the " sense of me. " When and how does the " sense of > > > me drop out. " What is it like before the " sense of me? " Is stillness > > > of presence reflecting all things relatively or absolutely impeded > > > when the " sense of me " has not dropped out? > > > > > > In my case, it makes does not compute. Me is here (hi y'all) and > > > then it is not (bye y'all). Now for others, there may be some > > > imaginings and experiences about what that " sense of me " refers to > > > saying like, " Yeah, the " sense of me " that's gotta go. But like > > > when is it going to drop out? I mean how does that happen and what > > > is " me " like compared to all the stuff going on. " What is " me? " It > > > is not always clear to the naive. > > > > > > So tell us clearly about the " sense of me " and the " sense of me " > > > dropping out. It will help others to understand what you mean. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > See? I don't see " you " , Lewis. All I see is this sign of " you " . > > There's never any " you " there. It's always just a sign, a symbol. A > > complete abstraction. There is no " you " or " me " . It is just a fiction, > > a convention of language; nothing more. > > > > fuzzie > > > > " See " refers to the word " understanding, " fuzzie. > > > > Back to " me. " > > > > It seems safe to say that your use of " me " or the " sense of me " is > > that it is just a fiction, a convention of language. > > > > Now this defining is not entirely clear, for a fiction, though a > > figment or an illusion, may have a " substantial presence " like the > > undeniable perception that the sun rises in the east arcs overhead to > > set in the west. Tens of millions of farmers and business people, > > among millions of others, use that optical illusion to successfully > > guide their their daily plans and activities. > > > > In your missive to Anders you give some indication that the ego or the > > " sense of me " is part of the of the body/mind complex and that it has > > a " place: " > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Exactly, Anders. There is no need to kill the ego. That would be the > > ego trying to kill it's self. That's silly. Just let the ego fall away > > and there is being in the present, which is where it's at. When the > > " me " falls away, everything is what it is in complete perfection. > > > > The sense of " me " , the ego, will still be part of the body/mind > > complex. But, it will no longer be dominant. When the ego drops away > > and presence is enjoyed, the ego is put in it's place and harmony > > prevails, even in chaos. > > > > fuzzie > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Most language conventions are associated with a complex of meanings, > > experiences, memories, perceptions, sensations and/or processes. > > > > Could you tell clearly describe what " me " is as a language convention > > and the relation between that fiction " me, " the mind/body complex, > > falling or dropping away and/or its non-dominance and place and > presence. > > > > By doing so, we can see better what you mean by " sense of me " and > > " dropping out of the sense of me. " > > > > Lewis > > > The " me " and the " you " are simply reference points invented in order > to facilitate communication and to create mental maps (ideas). > > Drop the " me " fiction and there is only presence. Awareness is no > longer confined to the limitations of the ego abstraction. It is > literally a release, a liberation. > > It is simply dropping the belief in the self. Drop the belief in the > self and a whole new vista opens up. > > > > fuzzie > > > Ok. > > The conceptual possibilties can be listted in order of appearance: Ego > > Sense of Me > Fiction/language convention me/part of the body/mind > complex > invented reference point to facilitate communication and > create mental maps > ego abstraction > self. > > All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all > refer to some thing that is left up to the imagination of the reader. > > Similarly ambiguous, there is without effort ego me loss: - when the > ego drops out, when the the sense of me drops out, falling out or > dropping out the me fiction and with effort ego me loss: - drop the me > fiction, drop the belief in the self. > > All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all > refer to some process that is left up to the imagination of the reader. > > By a happening in some unknown way and time or by unspecified direct > effort or both there is a loss of " ego, " " sense of me, " " me fiction " , > " belief in self, " and in this one gets enlightenment, release, > liberation - " limitless being and awareness, " " stillness of presence > reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. " > > Thank you fuzzie for the effort. > > Lewis LOL!!! :-D Lewis? That's about the best I can do. Next, you're gonna want to break it down into syllables, and, then, you'll be separating the consonants and the vowels, and, then, you'll be breaking it down to the individual letters and their frequency and all the permutations, combinations and ratios thereof. And, so on and so forth. Forget about it, Lewis. Enlightenment is a joke. I've been tellin' everybody that, and, no one believes me. It can't be taught. There is no such thing as enlightenment. There is nothing to get. It's that simple. fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > The " me " and the " you " are simply reference points invented in order > > to facilitate communication and to create mental maps (ideas). > > > > Drop the " me " fiction and there is only presence. Awareness is no > > longer confined to the limitations of the ego abstraction. It is > > literally a release, a liberation. > > > > It is simply dropping the belief in the self. Drop the belief in the > > self and a whole new vista opens up. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > devi: reference points for what? a soul? an Atman the Self... fuzzie: The reference points, such as " you " and " I " , are linguistic (fictional) inventions utilized in order to facilitate communication and to create mental maps (ideas). > devi: fuzzy, usually the *presence* ..practicing the Presence..is a practice > used to reach reality....i remember feeling the Presence of God, the > Presence it was a very nice experience...but i knew that there was an > even deeper Reality....do you see what i mean? fuzzie: No. I don't see what you mean. What is " practicing the Presence " ? What is " the Presence of God " ? What is reality and what is the " even deeper Reality " ? fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Nisargadatta Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:04 PM Re: The Ego's Gita Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only > > > > > > this: limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It > > > > > > simply is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > > > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > > > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it > > > > > drop out? These are questions for clarifying the statements > > > > > above making it clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > > > > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > > > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, > > > > > ego as sense of self and identity, ego as individual > > > > > consciousness, or transient consciousness, the temporary > > > > > conscious thinking subject, the impression of personal doership, > > > > > the awareness of the body and mind, the conscious part of the > > > > > body, serially organized stimulus response brain events, a > > > > > temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the conscious > > > > > experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > > > > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end > > > > > of something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its > > > > > foundations, and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is > > > > > it disappears without a trace, or it remains functional but is > > > > > empty of content, it never was and it is realized....., > > > > > > > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > > > > > > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. > > > > > > > > When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. > > > > Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is > > > > only presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking > > > > down the road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of > > > > sitting in a chair while reading this, when the " me " drops out, it > > > > is seen by no one that everything is exactly as it should be, as > > > > it is, perfect. When the " me " drops away, there is only the > > > > stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > Oh yes, it was quite funny. Hahahahaha!....... > > > > > > Now that you did your homework as was needed, what is funny is the > > > " ego " is now equivalent to the " sense of me " that drops out. What is > > > the " sense of me? " When and how does the sense of " me " drop out? > > > Perhaps, after homework was done, the " sense of me " seems better, > > > less troublesome thing to drop out, a sort of " ego-lite. " :-) > > > > > > Well, fuzzie, ambiguities still remain in your advice that is freely > > > given. > > > > > > For example, here I am. This is me. Me is writing this. (Remember > > > this dialogue?...). And me is here and there is " stillness of > > > presence reflecting all things absolutely impeded. " I do not see > > > what or how the " sense of me, " has anything to do with the stillness > > > of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. It seems to > > > me, that you just do what is always done and there you have it > > > " everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. " > > > > > > What does the " sense of me " have to do with that? What is the > > > dropping out of the " sense of me. " When and how does the " sense of > > > me drop out. " What is it like before the " sense of me? " Is stillness > > > of presence reflecting all things relatively or absolutely impeded > > > when the " sense of me " has not dropped out? > > > > > > In my case, it makes does not compute. Me is here (hi y'all) and > > > then it is not (bye y'all). Now for others, there may be some > > > imaginings and experiences about what that " sense of me " refers to > > > saying like, " Yeah, the " sense of me " that's gotta go. But like > > > when is it going to drop out? I mean how does that happen and what > > > is " me " like compared to all the stuff going on. " What is " me? " It > > > is not always clear to the naive. > > > > > > So tell us clearly about the " sense of me " and the " sense of me " > > > dropping out. It will help others to understand what you mean. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > See? I don't see " you " , Lewis. All I see is this sign of " you " . > > There's never any " you " there. It's always just a sign, a symbol. A > > complete abstraction. There is no " you " or " me " . It is just a fiction, > > a convention of language; nothing more. > > > > fuzzie > > > > " See " refers to the word " understanding, " fuzzie. > > > > Back to " me. " > > > > It seems safe to say that your use of " me " or the " sense of me " is > > that it is just a fiction, a convention of language. > > > > Now this defining is not entirely clear, for a fiction, though a > > figment or an illusion, may have a " substantial presence " like the > > undeniable perception that the sun rises in the east arcs overhead to > > set in the west. Tens of millions of farmers and business people, > > among millions of others, use that optical illusion to successfully > > guide their their daily plans and activities. > > > > In your missive to Anders you give some indication that the ego or the > > " sense of me " is part of the of the body/mind complex and that it has > > a " place: " > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Exactly, Anders. There is no need to kill the ego. That would be the > > ego trying to kill it's self. That's silly. Just let the ego fall away > > and there is being in the present, which is where it's at. When the > > " me " falls away, everything is what it is in complete perfection. > > > > The sense of " me " , the ego, will still be part of the body/mind > > complex. But, it will no longer be dominant. When the ego drops away > > and presence is enjoyed, the ego is put in it's place and harmony > > prevails, even in chaos. > > > > fuzzie > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Most language conventions are associated with a complex of meanings, > > experiences, memories, perceptions, sensations and/or processes. > > > > Could you tell clearly describe what " me " is as a language convention > > and the relation between that fiction " me, " the mind/body complex, > > falling or dropping away and/or its non-dominance and place and > presence. > > > > By doing so, we can see better what you mean by " sense of me " and > > " dropping out of the sense of me. " > > > > Lewis > > > The " me " and the " you " are simply reference points invented in order > to facilitate communication and to create mental maps (ideas). > > Drop the " me " fiction and there is only presence. Awareness is no > longer confined to the limitations of the ego abstraction. It is > literally a release, a liberation. > > It is simply dropping the belief in the self. Drop the belief in the > self and a whole new vista opens up. > > > > fuzzie > > > Ok. > > The conceptual possibilties can be listted in order of appearance: Ego > > Sense of Me > Fiction/language convention me/part of the body/mind > complex > invented reference point to facilitate communication and > create mental maps > ego abstraction > self. > > All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all > refer to some thing that is left up to the imagination of the reader. > > Similarly ambiguous, there is without effort ego me loss: - when the > ego drops out, when the the sense of me drops out, falling out or > dropping out the me fiction and with effort ego me loss: - drop the me > fiction, drop the belief in the self. > > All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all > refer to some process that is left up to the imagination of the reader. > > By a happening in some unknown way and time or by unspecified direct > effort or both there is a loss of " ego, " " sense of me, " " me fiction " , > " belief in self, " and in this one gets enlightenment, release, > liberation - " limitless being and awareness, " " stillness of presence > reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. " > > Thank you fuzzie for the effort. > > Lewis LOL!!! :-D Lewis? That's about the best I can do. Next, you're gonna want to break it down into syllables, and, then, you'll be separating the consonants and the vowels, and, then, you'll be breaking it down to the individual letters and their frequency and all the permutations, combinations and ratios thereof. And, so on and so forth. Forget about it, Lewis. Enlightenment is a joke. I've been tellin' everybody that, and, no one believes me. It can't be taught. There is no such thing as enlightenment. There is nothing to get. It's that simple. fuzzie It's even simpler, Fuzzie, it's all about running around with scissors, or b-b-guns and losing an 'i', something mom's said never to do...) ** 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 May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only > > > > > > > this: limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It > > > > > > > simply is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > > > > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > > > > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it > > > > > > drop out? These are questions for clarifying the statements > > > > > > above making it clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > > > > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions of ego, > > > > > > ego as sense of self and identity, ego as individual > > > > > > consciousness, or transient consciousness, the temporary > > > > > > conscious thinking subject, the impression of personal doership, > > > > > > the awareness of the body and mind, the conscious part of the > > > > > > body, serially organized stimulus response brain events, a > > > > > > temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the conscious > > > > > > experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > > > > > > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end > > > > > > of something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its > > > > > > foundations, and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what it is > > > > > > it disappears without a trace, or it remains functional but is > > > > > > empty of content, it never was and it is realized....., > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it drop? > > > > > > > > > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. > > > > > > > > > > When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. > > > > > Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is > > > > > only presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking > > > > > down the road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of > > > > > sitting in a chair while reading this, when the " me " drops out, it > > > > > is seen by no one that everything is exactly as it should be, as > > > > > it is, perfect. When the " me " drops away, there is only the > > > > > stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes, it was quite funny. Hahahahaha!....... > > > > > > > > Now that you did your homework as was needed, what is funny is the > > > > " ego " is now equivalent to the " sense of me " that drops out. What is > > > > the " sense of me? " When and how does the sense of " me " drop out? > > > > Perhaps, after homework was done, the " sense of me " seems better, > > > > less troublesome thing to drop out, a sort of " ego-lite. " :-) > > > > > > > > Well, fuzzie, ambiguities still remain in your advice that is freely > > > > given. > > > > > > > > For example, here I am. This is me. Me is writing this. (Remember > > > > this dialogue?...). And me is here and there is " stillness of > > > > presence reflecting all things absolutely impeded. " I do not see > > > > what or how the " sense of me, " has anything to do with the stillness > > > > of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. It seems to > > > > me, that you just do what is always done and there you have it > > > > " everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. " > > > > > > > > What does the " sense of me " have to do with that? What is the > > > > dropping out of the " sense of me. " When and how does the " sense of > > > > me drop out. " What is it like before the " sense of me? " Is stillness > > > > of presence reflecting all things relatively or absolutely impeded > > > > when the " sense of me " has not dropped out? > > > > > > > > In my case, it makes does not compute. Me is here (hi y'all) and > > > > then it is not (bye y'all). Now for others, there may be some > > > > imaginings and experiences about what that " sense of me " refers to > > > > saying like, " Yeah, the " sense of me " that's gotta go. But like > > > > when is it going to drop out? I mean how does that happen and what > > > > is " me " like compared to all the stuff going on. " What is " me? " It > > > > is not always clear to the naive. > > > > > > > > So tell us clearly about the " sense of me " and the " sense of me " > > > > dropping out. It will help others to understand what you mean. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > See? I don't see " you " , Lewis. All I see is this sign of " you " . > > > There's never any " you " there. It's always just a sign, a symbol. A > > > complete abstraction. There is no " you " or " me " . It is just a fiction, > > > a convention of language; nothing more. > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > " See " refers to the word " understanding, " fuzzie. > > > > > > Back to " me. " > > > > > > It seems safe to say that your use of " me " or the " sense of me " is > > > that it is just a fiction, a convention of language. > > > > > > Now this defining is not entirely clear, for a fiction, though a > > > figment or an illusion, may have a " substantial presence " like the > > > undeniable perception that the sun rises in the east arcs overhead to > > > set in the west. Tens of millions of farmers and business people, > > > among millions of others, use that optical illusion to successfully > > > guide their their daily plans and activities. > > > > > > In your missive to Anders you give some indication that the ego or the > > > " sense of me " is part of the of the body/mind complex and that it has > > > a " place: " > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Exactly, Anders. There is no need to kill the ego. That would be the > > > ego trying to kill it's self. That's silly. Just let the ego fall away > > > and there is being in the present, which is where it's at. When the > > > " me " falls away, everything is what it is in complete perfection. > > > > > > The sense of " me " , the ego, will still be part of the body/mind > > > complex. But, it will no longer be dominant. When the ego drops away > > > and presence is enjoyed, the ego is put in it's place and harmony > > > prevails, even in chaos. > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Most language conventions are associated with a complex of meanings, > > > experiences, memories, perceptions, sensations and/or processes. > > > > > > Could you tell clearly describe what " me " is as a language convention > > > and the relation between that fiction " me, " the mind/body complex, > > > falling or dropping away and/or its non-dominance and place and > > presence. > > > > > > By doing so, we can see better what you mean by " sense of me " and > > > " dropping out of the sense of me. " > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > The " me " and the " you " are simply reference points invented in order > > to facilitate communication and to create mental maps (ideas). > > > > Drop the " me " fiction and there is only presence. Awareness is no > > longer confined to the limitations of the ego abstraction. It is > > literally a release, a liberation. > > > > It is simply dropping the belief in the self. Drop the belief in the > > self and a whole new vista opens up. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > Ok. > > > > The conceptual possibilties can be listted in order of appearance: Ego > > > Sense of Me > Fiction/language convention me/part of the body/mind > > complex > invented reference point to facilitate communication and > > create mental maps > ego abstraction > self. > > > > All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all > > refer to some thing that is left up to the imagination of the reader. > > > > Similarly ambiguous, there is without effort ego me loss: - when the > > ego drops out, when the the sense of me drops out, falling out or > > dropping out the me fiction and with effort ego me loss: - drop the me > > fiction, drop the belief in the self. > > > > All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all > > refer to some process that is left up to the imagination of the reader. > > > > By a happening in some unknown way and time or by unspecified direct > > effort or both there is a loss of " ego, " " sense of me, " " me fiction " , > > " belief in self, " and in this one gets enlightenment, release, > > liberation - " limitless being and awareness, " " stillness of presence > > reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. " > > > > Thank you fuzzie for the effort. > > > > Lewis > > > LOL!!! :-D > > Lewis? That's about the best I can do. Next, you're gonna want to > break it down into syllables, and, then, you'll be separating the > consonants and the vowels, and, then, you'll be breaking it down to > the individual letters and their frequency and all the permutations, > combinations and ratios thereof. And, so on and so forth. > > Forget about it, Lewis. Enlightenment is a joke. I've been tellin' > everybody that, and, no one believes me. It can't be taught. There is > no such thing as enlightenment. There is nothing to get. It's that simple. > > fuzzie fuzzie, you still do not understand what this about. What was done was simply to have you expand on your knowledge for others. To clarify and provide a clear account of what you have been giving out on these lists. There is no interest breaking anything down. You broke it down. It is your advice and guidance. You told what you thought and explained it as you saw fit given the questions asked. I only assisted in that by asking for expansions, elaborations, and details. The result is above. And as far as there being enlightenment or not, you guide and have given guidance till this moment on what it takes to be enlightened, released and liberated as witnessed above and elsehwere. You can take it all back as you said above. There is nothing preventing that. That too is simple. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only > > > > > > > > this: limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It > > > > > > > > simply is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > > > > > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > > > > > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it > > > > > > > drop out? These are questions for clarifying the statements > > > > > > > above making it clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > > > > > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions > of ego, > > > > > > > ego as sense of self and identity, ego as individual > > > > > > > consciousness, or transient consciousness, the temporary > > > > > > > conscious thinking subject, the impression of personal > doership, > > > > > > > the awareness of the body and mind, the conscious part of the > > > > > > > body, serially organized stimulus response brain events, a > > > > > > > temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the > conscious > > > > > > > experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end > > > > > > > of something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its > > > > > > > foundations, and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what > it is > > > > > > > it disappears without a trace, or it remains functional but is > > > > > > > empty of content, it never was and it is realized....., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it > drop? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. > > > > > > Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is > > > > > > only presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking > > > > > > down the road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of > > > > > > sitting in a chair while reading this, when the " me " drops > out, it > > > > > > is seen by no one that everything is exactly as it should be, as > > > > > > it is, perfect. When the " me " drops away, there is only the > > > > > > stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely > unimpeded. > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes, it was quite funny. Hahahahaha!....... > > > > > > > > > > Now that you did your homework as was needed, what is funny is the > > > > > " ego " is now equivalent to the " sense of me " that drops out. > What is > > > > > the " sense of me? " When and how does the sense of " me " drop out? > > > > > Perhaps, after homework was done, the " sense of me " seems better, > > > > > less troublesome thing to drop out, a sort of " ego-lite. " :-) > > > > > > > > > > Well, fuzzie, ambiguities still remain in your advice that is > freely > > > > > given. > > > > > > > > > > For example, here I am. This is me. Me is writing this. (Remember > > > > > this dialogue?...). And me is here and there is " stillness of > > > > > presence reflecting all things absolutely impeded. " I do not see > > > > > what or how the " sense of me, " has anything to do with the > stillness > > > > > of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. It > seems to > > > > > me, that you just do what is always done and there you have it > > > > > " everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. " > > > > > > > > > > What does the " sense of me " have to do with that? What is the > > > > > dropping out of the " sense of me. " When and how does the " sense of > > > > > me drop out. " What is it like before the " sense of me? " Is > stillness > > > > > of presence reflecting all things relatively or absolutely impeded > > > > > when the " sense of me " has not dropped out? > > > > > > > > > > In my case, it makes does not compute. Me is here (hi y'all) and > > > > > then it is not (bye y'all). Now for others, there may be some > > > > > imaginings and experiences about what that " sense of me " refers to > > > > > saying like, " Yeah, the " sense of me " that's gotta go. But like > > > > > when is it going to drop out? I mean how does that happen and what > > > > > is " me " like compared to all the stuff going on. " What is " me? " It > > > > > is not always clear to the naive. > > > > > > > > > > So tell us clearly about the " sense of me " and the " sense of me " > > > > > dropping out. It will help others to understand what you mean. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > See? I don't see " you " , Lewis. All I see is this sign of " you " . > > > > There's never any " you " there. It's always just a sign, a symbol. A > > > > complete abstraction. There is no " you " or " me " . It is just a > fiction, > > > > a convention of language; nothing more. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > " See " refers to the word " understanding, " fuzzie. > > > > > > > > Back to " me. " > > > > > > > > It seems safe to say that your use of " me " or the " sense of me " is > > > > that it is just a fiction, a convention of language. > > > > > > > > Now this defining is not entirely clear, for a fiction, though a > > > > figment or an illusion, may have a " substantial presence " like the > > > > undeniable perception that the sun rises in the east arcs > overhead to > > > > set in the west. Tens of millions of farmers and business people, > > > > among millions of others, use that optical illusion to successfully > > > > guide their their daily plans and activities. > > > > > > > > In your missive to Anders you give some indication that the ego > or the > > > > " sense of me " is part of the of the body/mind complex and that > it has > > > > a " place: " > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Exactly, Anders. There is no need to kill the ego. That would be the > > > > ego trying to kill it's self. That's silly. Just let the ego > fall away > > > > and there is being in the present, which is where it's at. When the > > > > " me " falls away, everything is what it is in complete perfection. > > > > > > > > The sense of " me " , the ego, will still be part of the body/mind > > > > complex. But, it will no longer be dominant. When the ego drops away > > > > and presence is enjoyed, the ego is put in it's place and harmony > > > > prevails, even in chaos. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Most language conventions are associated with a complex of meanings, > > > > experiences, memories, perceptions, sensations and/or processes. > > > > > > > > Could you tell clearly describe what " me " is as a language > convention > > > > and the relation between that fiction " me, " the mind/body complex, > > > > falling or dropping away and/or its non-dominance and place and > > > presence. > > > > > > > > By doing so, we can see better what you mean by " sense of me " and > > > > " dropping out of the sense of me. " > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > The " me " and the " you " are simply reference points invented in order > > > to facilitate communication and to create mental maps (ideas). > > > > > > Drop the " me " fiction and there is only presence. Awareness is no > > > longer confined to the limitations of the ego abstraction. It is > > > literally a release, a liberation. > > > > > > It is simply dropping the belief in the self. Drop the belief in the > > > self and a whole new vista opens up. > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > The conceptual possibilties can be listted in order of appearance: Ego > > > > Sense of Me > Fiction/language convention me/part of the body/mind > > > complex > invented reference point to facilitate communication and > > > create mental maps > ego abstraction > self. > > > > > > All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all > > > refer to some thing that is left up to the imagination of the reader. > > > > > > Similarly ambiguous, there is without effort ego me loss: - when the > > > ego drops out, when the the sense of me drops out, falling out or > > > dropping out the me fiction and with effort ego me loss: - drop the me > > > fiction, drop the belief in the self. > > > > > > All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all > > > refer to some process that is left up to the imagination of the > reader. > > > > > > By a happening in some unknown way and time or by unspecified direct > > > effort or both there is a loss of " ego, " " sense of me, " " me fiction " , > > > " belief in self, " and in this one gets enlightenment, release, > > > liberation - " limitless being and awareness, " " stillness of presence > > > reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. " > > > > > > Thank you fuzzie for the effort. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > LOL!!! :-D > > > > Lewis? That's about the best I can do. Next, you're gonna want to > > break it down into syllables, and, then, you'll be separating the > > consonants and the vowels, and, then, you'll be breaking it down to > > the individual letters and their frequency and all the permutations, > > combinations and ratios thereof. And, so on and so forth. > > > > Forget about it, Lewis. Enlightenment is a joke. I've been tellin' > > everybody that, and, no one believes me. It can't be taught. There is > > no such thing as enlightenment. There is nothing to get. It's that > simple. > > > > fuzzie > > fuzzie, you still do not understand what this about. What was done was > simply to have you expand on your knowledge for others. To clarify and > provide a clear account of what you have been giving out on these > lists. There is no interest breaking anything down. You broke it down. > It is your advice and guidance. You told what you thought and > explained it as you saw fit given the questions asked. I only assisted > in that by asking for expansions, elaborations, and details. The > result is above. > > And as far as there being enlightenment or not, you guide and have > given guidance till this moment on what it takes to be enlightened, > released and liberated as witnessed above and elsehwere. You can take > it all back as you said above. There is nothing preventing that. That > too is simple. > > Lewis I merely responded to your postings, Lewis. There is no taking anything back. There is no enlightenment. That's the gist of it. Enlightenment is no-enlightenment. Go back and look at fuzzie posts on any list and this has been said over and over and over in various ways. There's nothing to get or to take back. There is no " you " or " me " except in the imagination. That's all there is to it. fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Nisargadatta Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:39 AM Re: The Ego's Gita Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In " limitless being " , there are no expectations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In theory, perhaps yes. But what about in practice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the practice. When the ego drops out, there is only > > > > > > > > this: limitless being; no questions, no expectations. It > > > > > > > > simply is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The " ego, " " when ego drops out " are relative to concepts, > > > > > > > experiences, belief, etc. They can mean different things. For > > > > > > > clarification " What is ego? When does it drop out? How does it > > > > > > > drop out? These are questions for clarifying the statements > > > > > > > above making it clear what may be taken for granted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the word used above refer to Freud's ego, Advaita > > > > > > > Vedantans'concpetions of " ego, " the Buddhist conceptions > of ego, > > > > > > > ego as sense of self and identity, ego as individual > > > > > > > consciousness, or transient consciousness, the temporary > > > > > > > conscious thinking subject, the impression of personal > doership, > > > > > > > the awareness of the body and mind, the conscious part of the > > > > > > > body, serially organized stimulus response brain events, a > > > > > > > temporary thought creation, the I that does stuff, the > conscious > > > > > > > experience of what one is, the self, the Self....... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is a particular combination of these? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When does it drop? At any moment, at a time approaching an end > > > > > > > of something, it inexplicably occurs, is it weakened at its > > > > > > > foundations, and crumbles suddenly, or when seen for what > it is > > > > > > > it disappears without a trace, or it remains functional but is > > > > > > > empty of content, it never was and it is realized....., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to know this and it is spoken and so how does it > drop? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clarification of the basics - ego, drop out. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL!!! That is a funny post, Lewis. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the ego drops out, that means the sense of " me " drops out. > > > > > > Enlightenment is when the sense of " me " falls away and there is > > > > > > only presence. Whether it be a car passing by or a dog barking > > > > > > down the road or a jet rumblin' overhead or just the feeling of > > > > > > sitting in a chair while reading this, when the " me " drops > out, it > > > > > > is seen by no one that everything is exactly as it should be, as > > > > > > it is, perfect. When the " me " drops away, there is only the > > > > > > stillness of presence reflecting all things absolutely > unimpeded. > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes, it was quite funny. Hahahahaha!....... > > > > > > > > > > Now that you did your homework as was needed, what is funny is the > > > > > " ego " is now equivalent to the " sense of me " that drops out. > What is > > > > > the " sense of me? " When and how does the sense of " me " drop out? > > > > > Perhaps, after homework was done, the " sense of me " seems better, > > > > > less troublesome thing to drop out, a sort of " ego-lite. " :-) > > > > > > > > > > Well, fuzzie, ambiguities still remain in your advice that is > freely > > > > > given. > > > > > > > > > > For example, here I am. This is me. Me is writing this. (Remember > > > > > this dialogue?...). And me is here and there is " stillness of > > > > > presence reflecting all things absolutely impeded. " I do not see > > > > > what or how the " sense of me, " has anything to do with the > stillness > > > > > of presence reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. It > seems to > > > > > me, that you just do what is always done and there you have it > > > > > " everything is exactly as it should be, as it is, perfect. " > > > > > > > > > > What does the " sense of me " have to do with that? What is the > > > > > dropping out of the " sense of me. " When and how does the " sense of > > > > > me drop out. " What is it like before the " sense of me? " Is > stillness > > > > > of presence reflecting all things relatively or absolutely impeded > > > > > when the " sense of me " has not dropped out? > > > > > > > > > > In my case, it makes does not compute. Me is here (hi y'all) and > > > > > then it is not (bye y'all). Now for others, there may be some > > > > > imaginings and experiences about what that " sense of me " refers to > > > > > saying like, " Yeah, the " sense of me " that's gotta go. But like > > > > > when is it going to drop out? I mean how does that happen and what > > > > > is " me " like compared to all the stuff going on. " What is " me? " It > > > > > is not always clear to the naive. > > > > > > > > > > So tell us clearly about the " sense of me " and the " sense of me " > > > > > dropping out. It will help others to understand what you mean. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > See? I don't see " you " , Lewis. All I see is this sign of " you " . > > > > There's never any " you " there. It's always just a sign, a symbol. A > > > > complete abstraction. There is no " you " or " me " . It is just a > fiction, > > > > a convention of language; nothing more. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > " See " refers to the word " understanding, " fuzzie. > > > > > > > > Back to " me. " > > > > > > > > It seems safe to say that your use of " me " or the " sense of me " is > > > > that it is just a fiction, a convention of language. > > > > > > > > Now this defining is not entirely clear, for a fiction, though a > > > > figment or an illusion, may have a " substantial presence " like the > > > > undeniable perception that the sun rises in the east arcs > overhead to > > > > set in the west. Tens of millions of farmers and business people, > > > > among millions of others, use that optical illusion to successfully > > > > guide their their daily plans and activities. > > > > > > > > In your missive to Anders you give some indication that the ego > or the > > > > " sense of me " is part of the of the body/mind complex and that > it has > > > > a " place: " > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Exactly, Anders. There is no need to kill the ego. That would be the > > > > ego trying to kill it's self. That's silly. Just let the ego > fall away > > > > and there is being in the present, which is where it's at. When the > > > > " me " falls away, everything is what it is in complete perfection. > > > > > > > > The sense of " me " , the ego, will still be part of the body/mind > > > > complex. But, it will no longer be dominant. When the ego drops away > > > > and presence is enjoyed, the ego is put in it's place and harmony > > > > prevails, even in chaos. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Most language conventions are associated with a complex of meanings, > > > > experiences, memories, perceptions, sensations and/or processes. > > > > > > > > Could you tell clearly describe what " me " is as a language > convention > > > > and the relation between that fiction " me, " the mind/body complex, > > > > falling or dropping away and/or its non-dominance and place and > > > presence. > > > > > > > > By doing so, we can see better what you mean by " sense of me " and > > > > " dropping out of the sense of me. " > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > The " me " and the " you " are simply reference points invented in order > > > to facilitate communication and to create mental maps (ideas). > > > > > > Drop the " me " fiction and there is only presence. Awareness is no > > > longer confined to the limitations of the ego abstraction. It is > > > literally a release, a liberation. > > > > > > It is simply dropping the belief in the self. Drop the belief in the > > > self and a whole new vista opens up. > > > > > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > The conceptual possibilties can be listted in order of appearance: Ego > > > > Sense of Me > Fiction/language convention me/part of the body/mind > > > complex > invented reference point to facilitate communication and > > > create mental maps > ego abstraction > self. > > > > > > All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all > > > refer to some thing that is left up to the imagination of the reader. > > > > > > Similarly ambiguous, there is without effort ego me loss: - when the > > > ego drops out, when the the sense of me drops out, falling out or > > > dropping out the me fiction and with effort ego me loss: - drop the me > > > fiction, drop the belief in the self. > > > > > > All of these remain undefined and ambiguous. One can suppose they all > > > refer to some process that is left up to the imagination of the > reader. > > > > > > By a happening in some unknown way and time or by unspecified direct > > > effort or both there is a loss of " ego, " " sense of me, " " me fiction " , > > > " belief in self, " and in this one gets enlightenment, release, > > > liberation - " limitless being and awareness, " " stillness of presence > > > reflecting all things absolutely unimpeded. " > > > > > > Thank you fuzzie for the effort. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > LOL!!! :-D > > > > Lewis? That's about the best I can do. Next, you're gonna want to > > break it down into syllables, and, then, you'll be separating the > > consonants and the vowels, and, then, you'll be breaking it down to > > the individual letters and their frequency and all the permutations, > > combinations and ratios thereof. And, so on and so forth. > > > > Forget about it, Lewis. Enlightenment is a joke. I've been tellin' > > everybody that, and, no one believes me. It can't be taught. There is > > no such thing as enlightenment. There is nothing to get. It's that > simple. > > > > fuzzie > > fuzzie, you still do not understand what this about. What was done was > simply to have you expand on your knowledge for others. To clarify and > provide a clear account of what you have been giving out on these > lists. There is no interest breaking anything down. You broke it down. > It is your advice and guidance. You told what you thought and > explained it as you saw fit given the questions asked. I only assisted > in that by asking for expansions, elaborations, and details. The > result is above. > > And as far as there being enlightenment or not, you guide and have > given guidance till this moment on what it takes to be enlightened, > released and liberated as witnessed above and elsehwere. You can take > it all back as you said above. There is nothing preventing that. That > too is simple. > > Lewis I merely responded to your postings, Lewis. There is no taking anything back. There is no enlightenment. That's the gist of it. Enlightenment is no-enlightenment. Go back and look at fuzzie posts on any list and this has been said over and over and over in various ways. There's nothing to get or to take back. There is no " you " or " me " except in the imagination. That's all there is to it. fuzzie 'Morning fuzzie, And herein lies the problem, I think, that folks have with 'fuzzie'. Since we are linguistic animals, words are what are used to communicate, especially here, where physical cues are unable to be perceived. So to say there is no 'enlightenment' is to not give a Name to the Experience Of No-Self. A reference point to/for the subject so the subject, upon experiencing itself as object, can say---This is what Happened. Of course, pulled back further, " nothing happened " . The first Seeing has to occur and named. All else subsequent is thus understood and Known. Sort of In the Beginning was the Word thing.... a. ** 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
