Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > 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. Words are limited. They can only point. There is what can be said, and, then, there is silence. " Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. " (Ludwig Wittgenstein) 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 8:38 AM Re: The Ego's Gita Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > 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. Words are limited. They can only point. There is what can be said, and, then, there is silence. " Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. " (Ludwig Wittgenstein) fuzzie I understand the silence having experienced the silence of empty space; it is the very height breath and depth of me. yes, pointed to--but words are what must be used to do the pointing, unless one can read between the words/lines or one can sit with 'another' in Silence. How about That being the nature of guru-disciple? What-cha think Fuzzie? 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
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: > > > 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 That is as it is. " Enlightenment is no-enlightenment.... There is no " you " or " me " except in the imagination. That's all there is to it. " It is clear. Lewis 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 , " 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: i already read that answer up above...i'm asking are the reference points for a Soul, the Over-Soul, Atman, Self... > > > > 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 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 devi: in the imagination of what? or who? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > 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 > > devi: in the imagination of what? or who? Exactly! Who are " you " and " me " ? Just thought-dreams that play in the presence. fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: ***SNIP*** > > > > > > '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. > > Words are limited. They can only point. There is what can be said, > and, then, there is silence. > > " Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. " (Ludwig > Wittgenstein) > > fuzzie > > > I understand the silence having > experienced the silence of empty > space; it is the very height breath and > depth of me. > > yes, pointed to--but words are what must be used to do the pointing, > unless one can read between the > words/lines or one can sit with 'another' in Silence. > > How about That being the nature of > guru-disciple? > > What-cha think Fuzzie? > > a. As you probably know by now, I am the antiguru. I don't know if you wanna get me started on that subject. I do not believe in gurus, at all. Presence is all there is. Presence is either recognized and shared or it is rejected and ignored. There really is nothing to teach or to argue about. The case is built on prima facie evidence. The only arguments I ever have about presence is when they become personal attacks (ad hominem). It rarely has anything to do with the actual subject matter. 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: > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > devi: in the imagination of what? or who? > > Exactly! Who are " you " and " me " ? Just thought-dreams that play in the > presence. > > > > fuzzie devi: what is the presence? you mean the Self..Atman...let's get on the same page..somehow..:-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 devi: in the imagination of what? or who? > > Exactly! Who are " you " and " me " ? Just thought-dreams that play in the > presence. > > > > fuzzie devi: i know who i am and i know who your are...my i comes from Atman, from the real me and your i comes from Atman, the real you... your fuzzy isn't considered real and my devi isn't considered real, Atman is Real...Self is Real i'm trying to get to the point where you can say the same thing.... you seem to be saying that you know this atman while in the physical form as a feeling of presence.. i'm asking if you know it in its pristine unmanifest form where there is no universe or world..no body...no mind...no i am...just Self, just Atman... 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 , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > ***SNIP*** > > > > > > > > > > '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. > > > > Words are limited. They can only point. There is what can be said, > > and, then, there is silence. > > > > " Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. " (Ludwig > > Wittgenstein) > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > I understand the silence having > > experienced the silence of empty > > space; it is the very height breath and > > depth of me. > > > > yes, pointed to--but words are what must be used to do the pointing, > > unless one can read between the > > words/lines or one can sit with 'another' in Silence. > > > > How about That being the nature of > > guru-disciple? > > > > What-cha think Fuzzie? > > > > a. > > As you probably know by now, I am the antiguru. I don't know if you > wanna get me started on that subject. > > I do not believe in gurus, at all. Presence is all there is. Presence > is either recognized and shared or it is rejected and ignored. There > really is nothing to teach or to argue about. The case is built on > prima facie evidence. The only arguments I ever have about presence is > when they become personal attacks (ad hominem). It rarely has anything > to do with the actual subject matter. > > fuzzie This is the relative world, fuzzie, the world of words and ideas and, perhaps, it could be considered that your simple statements " Presence is all there is " and " There is no enlightenment " goes without further saying. Three times may be enough to establish your view with fresh introductions made and input given to new arrivals. With greater repetition, these statement may appear as personally motivated opinion and of no special significance since these assertions of " fact " made by fuzzie are strongly presumed to be true regardless if disproved in some way; or seen as an agenda to disturb or dissolve the sanctity of beliefs of one kind or another or other imaginings about the appearances of those words. So, in repeating them many times, these assertions of presumed fact can be seen as a challenge to all comers to prove it wrong or misguided or too simplistic. Now some do not like challenges during time in debate or argument or discussion and when seen as unable to overcome the prima facie evidence, sometimes the " personal thang " comes into play and substitutes for evidence for or rational argument against the prima facie evidence - " Presence is all there is. " Others may just let it go as an overabundant use of Advaita Vedanta or Neo-Advaita Vedanta aphorisms or engage the " personal thang " to say it is merely " repititious drivel " spoken by some one out to prove a point, or some other opinion, without, as you say, addressing the assertion head on - " Presence is all there is. " So in commonly encountering this, it is uttered, " Presence is either recognized and shared or it is rejected and ignored. " This assertion divides into those who see the presumed fact as they imagine it and agree (with or without fuzzie) and those who don't accept it for whatever reason and disagree with the fact or fuzzie (and not the fact) or both. Of course there are the many others who have no concern with it at all and do not fit into this either or equation. In asserting this way with words, any challenge is seen as defeated beforehand and any view contrary to it is seen as thrown into the rejected and ignored bin and so it is uninviting. There is no invitation to discuss. and there is only repetitious assertions that may appear as dogma or implicit challenges. This may annoy some, others don't mind, others ignore it, others embrace it and so on in the universes that are. And so, such assertions, make it all undiscussable, being only either or, yes or no. Further, this position on the surface seems insurmountable. Who can deny " Presence " and who can deny that " Presence is all there is. " Who can disprove these statements? What evidence can be brought to disprove it? So far none have risen to the challenge these statement successfully and most do not know the simple solution to the prima facie evidence. And if there are challenges, it sometimes not always turns into that " personal thang " and not only on one side. Even so, the bubble floats ( " Presence is all there is. " ) as it does and it does not take much to puncture it. Pins and sharp instruments at the moment are not allowed in the vicinity. All bubbles pop soon after being blown but it takes time sometimes to recognize it is gone being among all the other bubbles blown knowingly and unknowingly. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > devi: in the imagination of what? or who? > > > > Exactly! Who are " you " and " me " ? Just thought-dreams that play in the > > presence. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > devi: i know who i am and i know who your are...my i comes from Atman, > from the real me and your i comes from Atman, the real you... > your fuzzy isn't considered real and my devi isn't considered real, > Atman is Real...Self is Real > > i'm trying to get to the point where you can say the same thing.... > > you seem to be saying that you know this atman while in the physical > form as a feeling of presence.. i'm asking if you know it in its > pristine unmanifest form where there is no universe or world..no > body...no mind...no i am...just Self, just Atman... But Fuzzie -- this Atamn, I have read all sorts of books on it and I don't understand it. Why can't you use simple words that are not foreign that we can all understand. -- an echo of the Self. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > devi: in the imagination of what? or who? > > > > Exactly! Who are " you " and " me " ? Just thought-dreams that play in the > > presence. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > devi: i know who i am and i know who your are...my i comes from Atman, > from the real me and your i comes from Atman, the real you... > your fuzzy isn't considered real and my devi isn't considered real, > Atman is Real...Self is Real > > i'm trying to get to the point where you can say the same thing.... > > you seem to be saying that you know this atman while in the physical > form as a feeling of presence.. i'm asking if you know it in its > pristine unmanifest form where there is no universe or world..no > body...no mind...no i am...just Self, just Atman... Hi, Devianandi: In the above post, you claim to know me. Who am I? Also, what is " Atman " ? Tell me what is " Atman " and " who am I? " , and, then, we'll try to get on the same page... fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Nisargadatta Thursday, May 26, 2005 12:52 AM Re: The Ego's Gita Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > devi: in the imagination of what? or who? > > > > Exactly! Who are " you " and " me " ? Just thought-dreams that play in the > > presence. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > devi: i know who i am and i know who your are...my i comes from Atman, > from the real me and your i comes from Atman, the real you... > your fuzzy isn't considered real and my devi isn't considered real, > Atman is Real...Self is Real > > i'm trying to get to the point where you can say the same thing.... > > you seem to be saying that you know this atman while in the physical > form as a feeling of presence.. i'm asking if you know it in its > pristine unmanifest form where there is no universe or world..no > body...no mind...no i am...just Self, just Atman... Hi, Devianandi: In the above post, you claim to know me. Who am I? Also, what is " Atman " ? Tell me what is " Atman " and " who am I? " , and, then, we'll try to get on the same page... fuzzie Good morning Devianandi and Fuzzie, May I introduce you to oneAnother: Self/No-Self..... You two figure out which is which and who is who.... 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
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2005 Exactly! Who are " you " and " me " ? Just thought-dreams that play in the presence. devi: i know who i am and i know who your are...my i comes from Atman, from the real me and your i comes from Atman, the real you... your fuzzy isn't considered real and my devi isn't considered real, Atman is Real...Self is Real i'm trying to get to the point where you can say the same thing.... you seem to be saying that you know this atman while in the physical form as a feeling of presence.. i'm asking if you know it in its pristine unmanifest form where there is no universe or world..no body...no mind...no i am...just Self, just Atman... Hi, Devianandi: In the above post, you claim to know me. Who am I? Also, what is " Atman " ? Tell me what is " Atman " and " who am I? " , and, then, we'll try to get on the same page... fuzzie devi: you are Atman...you're not a body/mind complex you're not anything that can be felt or sensed.... Atman = a unit of god-consciousness God-within-the-creature is known in sanskrit at the Atman or Purusha. the Real Self.... atman is intelligence itself..the real seer... the electric current is present in the lightbulb Atman is in all things, everywhere. Atman is the *source* of the electic current in your body..it can be felt but...that feeling keeps someone from knowing it..completely.. Purusha is another name for Atman it is defined as the *God-head* that dwells withn the body.... Your Atman...can be felt as a presence..so the presence is coming from Atman.... one of these days i'm gong to make a whole list of what the words Atman and Purusha refer too... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > Exactly! Who are " you " and " me " ? Just thought-dreams that play in the > presence. > > > devi: i know who i am and i know who your are...my i comes from > Atman, from the real me and your i comes from Atman, the real > you... your fuzzy isn't considered real and my devi isn't considered > real, Atman is Real...Self is Real > > i'm trying to get to the point where you can say the same thing.... > you seem to be saying that you know this atman while in the > physical form as a feeling of presence.. i'm asking if you know it > in its pristine unmanifest form where there is no universe or > world..no body...no mind...no i am...just Self, just Atman... > > Hi, Devianandi: In the above post, you claim to know me. Who am I? > Also, what is " Atman " ? > > Tell me what is " Atman " and " who am I? " , and, then, we'll try to get > on the same page... > > fuzzie > > devi: you are Atman...you're not a body/mind complex you're not > anything that can be felt or sensed.... > > Atman = a unit of god-consciousness > > God-within-the-creature is known in sanskrit at the Atman or > Purusha. the Real Self.... > > atman is intelligence itself..the real seer... > > the electric current is present in the lightbulb > Atman is in all things, everywhere. > Atman is the *source* of the electic current in your body..it can be > felt but...that feeling keeps someone from knowing it..completely.. > Purusha is another name for Atman it is defined as the *God-head* > that dwells withn the body.... > > Your Atman...can be felt as a presence..so the presence is coming > from Atman.... > > one of these days i'm gong to make a whole list of what the words > Atman and Purusha refer too... Hi, Devianandi: This list that we're writing on, now, is a list of words referring to " Atman " and " Purusha " , is it not? Whatever those " things " are? I don't know. All I know is now. This is it. So, you are a painter? What do you paint? Scenes? Portraits? Abstracts? fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > Exactly! Who are " you " and " me " ? Just thought-dreams that play in the > > presence. > > > > > > devi: i know who i am and i know who your are...my i comes from > > Atman, from the real me and your i comes from Atman, the real > > you... your fuzzy isn't considered real and my devi isn't considered > > real, Atman is Real...Self is Real > > > > i'm trying to get to the point where you can say the same thing.... > > you seem to be saying that you know this atman while in the > > physical form as a feeling of presence.. i'm asking if you know it > > in its pristine unmanifest form where there is no universe or > > world..no body...no mind...no i am...just Self, just Atman... > > > > Hi, Devianandi: In the above post, you claim to know me. Who am I? > > Also, what is " Atman " ? > > > > Tell me what is " Atman " and " who am I? " , and, then, we'll try to get > > on the same page... > > > > fuzzie > > > > devi: you are Atman...you're not a body/mind complex you're not > > anything that can be felt or sensed.... > > > > Atman = a unit of god-consciousness > > > > God-within-the-creature is known in sanskrit at the Atman or > > Purusha. the Real Self.... > > > > atman is intelligence itself..the real seer... > > > > the electric current is present in the lightbulb > > Atman is in all things, everywhere. > > Atman is the *source* of the electic current in your body..it can be > > felt but...that feeling keeps someone from knowing it..completely.. > > Purusha is another name for Atman it is defined as the *God- head* > > that dwells withn the body.... > > > > Your Atman...can be felt as a presence..so the presence is coming > > from Atman.... > > > > one of these days i'm gong to make a whole list of what the words > > Atman and Purusha refer too... > > > > Hi, Devianandi: > > This list that we're writing on, now, is a list of words referring to > " Atman " and " Purusha " , is it not? Whatever those " things " are? > > I don't know. All I know is now. This is it. > > So, you are a painter? What do you paint? Scenes? Portraits? Abstracts? > > fuzzie devi: so you can say you have *now* realization...not self- realization....how about that..then you won't confuse all the other dreamers... i've given up painting, but i used to be obsessed with painting roses and i do a very pretty barn painting thats more like a decoration......peace out fuzz.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > 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 Sounds as you have reached such state yourself. Do you experience a deep peace in your life not burdened by constant ego thoughts and emotions? I have only an idea of what such state is; simply the absence of my _excessive_ worrying about virtually everything. I am nowhere near the ego-less state Vernon Howard and other sages describe. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > 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 > > > Sounds as you have reached such state yourself. Do you experience a > deep peace in your life not burdened by constant ego thoughts and > emotions? > > I have only an idea of what such state is; simply the absence of my > _excessive_ worrying about virtually everything. I am nowhere near > the ego-less state Vernon Howard and other sages describe. > > al. There is no " reach(ing) such state yourself " . You're already " there " . It is simply seeing through the separative ego mirage. It is a mental 'optical' illusion, so to speak. Like the old Hindu story about the guy who saw a rope and mistook it for a snake. He was freaked out and in a state of fear and anxiety about it. Then, upon closer inspection, he saw the snake was just a rope. All of his fear and doubts vanished. It was all in his mind. The individual ego-self is the same way. It's imaginary, an illusion. fuzzie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Nisargadatta Saturday, May 28, 2005 12:35 PM Re: The Ego's Gita Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > 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 > > > Sounds as you have reached such state yourself. Do you experience a > deep peace in your life not burdened by constant ego thoughts and > emotions? > > I have only an idea of what such state is; simply the absence of my > _excessive_ worrying about virtually everything. I am nowhere near > the ego-less state Vernon Howard and other sages describe. > > al. There is no " reach(ing) such state yourself " . You're already " there " . It is simply seeing through the separative ego mirage. It is a mental 'optical' illusion, so to speak. Like the old Hindu story about the guy who saw a rope and mistook it for a snake. He was freaked out and in a state of fear and anxiety about it. Then, upon closer inspection, he saw the snake was just a rope. All of his fear and doubts vanished. It was all in his mind. The individual ego-self is the same way. It's imaginary, an illusion. fuzzie Don't ya just wanna go --- poof ---(we gotta have writers cramps). Drum Roll, trumpets blaring...One Light beam from above shining thru the clouds....ta da!!!! NoOne's home!!!! Cause only NoOne lives here... Lots of Vacancies....: - ) (And me a Realtor, sheesh!!!) sheesh 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
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 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: > > > > 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 > > > > > > Sounds as you have reached such state yourself. Do you experience a > > deep peace in your life not burdened by constant ego thoughts and > > emotions? > > > > I have only an idea of what such state is; simply the absence of my > > _excessive_ worrying about virtually everything. I am nowhere near > > the ego-less state Vernon Howard and other sages describe. > > > > al. > > > There is no " reach(ing) such state yourself " . You're already " there " . > It is simply seeing through the separative ego mirage. It is a mental > 'optical' illusion, so to speak. Like the old Hindu story about the > guy who saw a rope and mistook it for a snake. He was freaked out and > in a state of fear and anxiety about it. Then, upon closer inspection, > he saw the snake was just a rope. All of his fear and doubts vanished. > It was all in his mind. The individual ego-self is the same way. It's > imaginary, an illusion. > > > > fuzzie ** He wants to know, and be in-the-know. He wants to hold and maintain assumptions. They're about grasping...and the envy of 'realized' people. He's heard and read what you've said a million times. He's not stupid or illiterate...he is an emotional problem. Suffering is his grace...so to speak...but he won't acknowledge it. Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 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: > > > > 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 > > > > > > Sounds as you have reached such state yourself. Do you experience a > > deep peace in your life not burdened by constant ego thoughts and > > emotions? > > > > I have only an idea of what such state is; simply the absence of my > > _excessive_ worrying about virtually everything. I am nowhere near > > the ego-less state Vernon Howard and other sages describe. > > > > al. > > > There is no " reach(ing) such state yourself " . You're already " there " . > It is simply seeing through the separative ego mirage. It is a mental > 'optical' illusion, so to speak. Like the old Hindu story about the > guy who saw a rope and mistook it for a snake. He was freaked out and > in a state of fear and anxiety about it. Then, upon closer inspection, > he saw the snake was just a rope. All of his fear and doubts vanished. > It was all in his mind. The individual ego-self is the same way. It's > imaginary, an illusion. > > > > fuzzie Hello fuzzie, al, Yes, many do live in thought constructions 'about' experience and reality -- not in actual immediate experience, nor in the center of Being. To seek the path which goes beyond suffering and death, does not deny the inevitable fate of human existence, which is physical death, nor any experiences, yet the fruits of experiential understanding borne of this seeking may serve to release one from the suffering generated by " taking the rope for the snake " and to see that the seeking to escape the suffering was also part of the suffering, yet, ironically, it is only through experiential understanding, not just intellectual, that this is grokked. kindest regards, Freyja Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> 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: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > Sounds as you have reached such state yourself. Do you experience > a > > > deep peace in your life not burdened by constant ego thoughts and > > > emotions? > > > > > > I have only an idea of what such state is; simply the absence of > my > > > _excessive_ worrying about virtually everything. I am nowhere > near > > > the ego-less state Vernon Howard and other sages describe. > > > > > > al. > > > > > > There is no " reach(ing) such state yourself " . You're > already " there " . > > It is simply seeing through the separative ego mirage. It is a > mental > > 'optical' illusion, so to speak. Like the old Hindu story about the > > guy who saw a rope and mistook it for a snake. He was freaked out > and > > in a state of fear and anxiety about it. Then, upon closer > inspection, > > he saw the snake was just a rope. All of his fear and doubts > vanished. > > It was all in his mind. The individual ego-self is the same way. > It's > > imaginary, an illusion. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > Hello fuzzie, al, > > Yes, many do live in thought constructions > 'about' experience and reality -- > not in actual immediate experience, > nor in the center of Being. > > To seek the path which goes beyond > suffering and death, does not deny > the inevitable fate of human existence, > which is physical death, nor any experiences, > yet the fruits of experiential understanding > borne of this seeking > may serve to release one from the suffering > generated by " taking the rope for the > snake " > > and to see that the seeking to escape > the suffering was also part of the > suffering, > > yet, ironically, it is only through > experiential understanding, not > just intellectual, that this is grokked. > > kindest regards, > > Freyja Seeing that the seeking to escape the suffering is also part of the suffering. That is really something I have to grok. So strange that there could be so much conflict within one own thoughts and emotions. I am fighting a world that is really an inner experience; trying to hold control over fragmented " possessions " in my mind. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 29, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Sunday, May 29, 2005 3:37 AM Re: The Ego's Gita Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> 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: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > Sounds as you have reached such state yourself. Do you experience > a > > > deep peace in your life not burdened by constant ego thoughts and > > > emotions? > > > > > > I have only an idea of what such state is; simply the absence of > my > > > _excessive_ worrying about virtually everything. I am nowhere > near > > > the ego-less state Vernon Howard and other sages describe. > > > > > > al. > > > > > > There is no " reach(ing) such state yourself " . You're > already " there " . > > It is simply seeing through the separative ego mirage. It is a > mental > > 'optical' illusion, so to speak. Like the old Hindu story about the > > guy who saw a rope and mistook it for a snake. He was freaked out > and > > in a state of fear and anxiety about it. Then, upon closer > inspection, > > he saw the snake was just a rope. All of his fear and doubts > vanished. > > It was all in his mind. The individual ego-self is the same way. > It's > > imaginary, an illusion. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > Hello fuzzie, al, > > Yes, many do live in thought constructions > 'about' experience and reality -- > not in actual immediate experience, > nor in the center of Being. > > To seek the path which goes beyond > suffering and death, does not deny > the inevitable fate of human existence, > which is physical death, nor any experiences, > yet the fruits of experiential understanding > borne of this seeking > may serve to release one from the suffering > generated by " taking the rope for the > snake " > > and to see that the seeking to escape > the suffering was also part of the > suffering, > > yet, ironically, it is only through > experiential understanding, not > just intellectual, that this is grokked. > > kindest regards, > > Freyja Seeing that the seeking to escape the suffering is also part of the suffering. That is really something I have to grok. So strange that there could be so much conflict within one own thoughts and emotions. I am fighting a world that is really an inner experience; trying to hold control over fragmented " possessions " in my mind. al. Yes, dear Al, this is so. Control is the issue now, not suffering. Letting all Be As It Is IS the only route that al. takes as the inner experience possessing al. It is circuitousness in nature. 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
Guest guest Report post Posted May 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman .... > > > Seeing that the seeking to escape the suffering is also part of the > suffering. That is really something I have to grok. So strange that > there could be so much conflict within one own thoughts and > emotions. I am fighting a world that is really an inner experience; > trying to hold control over fragmented " possessions " in my mind. > > al. > > > Yes, dear Al, this is so. > > Control is the issue now, not suffering. > > Letting all Be As It Is IS the only route > that al. takes as the inner experience > possessing al. It is circuitousness in nature. > > a. > I think it is partial control that is the ego, specially partial control as a personal future. The future is important, but maybe not so important as my thoughts and emotions are telling me. The inner conflict I experience is for me an indication that there is something wrong somewhere. One thing is that I am not at all happy with the world as it is right now. I feel like a " Stranger in a strange land " which is the book where Heinlein coined " grok " . " You know that there is something wrong with this world. You don't know what it is. But it is there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad " -- Morpheus in the first Matrix movie al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 29, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:06 AM Re: The Ego's Gita Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman ... > > > Seeing that the seeking to escape the suffering is also part of the > suffering. That is really something I have to grok. So strange that > there could be so much conflict within one own thoughts and > emotions. I am fighting a world that is really an inner experience; > trying to hold control over fragmented " possessions " in my mind. > > al. > > > Yes, dear Al, this is so. > > Control is the issue now, not suffering. > > Letting all Be As It Is IS the only route > that al. takes as the inner experience > possessing al. It is circuitousness in nature. > > a. > I think it is partial control that is the ego, specially partial control as a personal future. The future is important, but maybe not so important as my thoughts and emotions are telling me. The inner conflict I experience is for me an indication that there is something wrong somewhere. One thing is that I am not at all happy with the world as it is right now. I feel like a " Stranger in a strange land " which is the book where Heinlein coined " grok " . " You know that there is something wrong with this world. You don't know what it is. But it is there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad " -- Morpheus in the first Matrix movie al. NoOne can die again for al. for noOne is the death of al. al. <who> is the source of suffering, of ego, of control, of personal future. A " wrongness " existing only in the splintered mind of al. All things of the mind thus disappear and This Is All for the Life of al. to Be so " Lived " . Enjoyment for the sake of Enjoyment. 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
