Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > > hi al. > > > > > > > > " you " develop nice dreams..... > > > > lol...the " dream-selling person " inside the life dream.... > > > > > > > > the life dream-movie....in which we are sitting and watching..... > > > > > > > > in being the Love that we Are..... > > > > > > > > good morning and good day..... > > > > > > > > nice dreams > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > One important propery of meta-thinking is that it has its root in > > > newness and not in past memories. Ordinary thinking has its root in > > > past memories. In fact, the only way for ordinary thinking to be any > > > way creative is to tap into meta-thinking. Meta-thinking uses > > newness > > > together with past knowledge when necessary, while ordinary > > thinking > > > uses past memories and often fails to use newness when necessary. > > > > > > The state of meta-thinking is secure in itself by default because it > > > has its root in the living moment, while ordinary thinking can never > > > be completely secure because it is based of past knowledge, which is > > > always limited and cannot cope with the flow of newness in the > > present > > > moment in a complete way. > > > > > > So in theory, meta-thinking is a far better state to be in. The > > > problem is: is meta-thinking really possible or merely an idea? > > > > > > al. > > > > al., > > > > ...how do you know that it is a " far better state to be in " .....if > > you don't know if it's really possible....? > > > > every moment of awareness create already " newness " .....why trying to > > invent something new....in the " newness " of awareness Itself?... > > > > if you watch the movie with deep arereness....there will be something > > new appearing....don't worry.... > > > > Regards > > > > Marc > > > Meta-thinking is a better state because of the inherent insecurity in > ordinary thinking. That insecurity is conflict, because the source for > that process is limited past knowledge used for trying to control the > vast flow of life, which, of course, it cannot do in a complete way. > > al. Hello al., reading the conversation about the subject.... you tell about this " ordinary thinking " ...thoughts that are related to past......which give you " insecurity " ....and " conflict " .... at one side....you try get detachment from this " ordinary thinking " .....and other side.....you want to create something " new " .....a thechnique in order to keep being on distance from this ordinary thinking.... imagine now....if one day.....this " ordinary " thoughts would disappear.......or this " conflict " to them..... what would happen to your meta-thoughts....? it seem that you will keep this " ordinary thinking " alive.....by your theorie of meta-thinking.... so....instead to get detachment from this " ordinary thinking " ....you create maybe a stronger attachment to them.... Clay also mentionned meditation..... i agree with his words.... wish you to get out of this " conflict " with the " ordinary thoughts " ... Regards and peace Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Clay " <clay.spencer@v...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Clay " <clay.spencer@v...> > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Clay " > <clay.spencer@v...> > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " you " develop nice dreams..... > > > > > > > lol...the " dream-selling person " inside the life > dream.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the life dream-movie....in which we are sitting and > > > watching..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in being the Love that we Are..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good morning and good day..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice dreams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One important propery of meta-thinking is that it has its > root > > > in > > > > > > newness and not in past memories. Ordinary thinking has > its > > > root in > > > > > > past memories. In fact, the only way for ordinary thinking > to > > > be > > > > > any > > > > > > way creative is to tap into meta-thinking. Meta-thinking > uses > > > > > newness > > > > > > together with past knowledge when necessary, while > ordinary > > > > > thinking > > > > > > uses past memories and often fails to use newness when > > > necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > The state of meta-thinking is secure in itself by default > > > because > > > > > it > > > > > > has its root in the living moment, while ordinary thinking > can > > > > > never > > > > > > be completely secure because it is based of past > knowledge, > > > which > > > > > is > > > > > > always limited and cannot cope with the flow of newness in > the > > > > > present > > > > > > moment in a complete way. > > > > > > > > > > > > So in theory, meta-thinking is a far better state to be > in. The > > > > > > problem is: is meta-thinking really possible or merely an > idea? > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > al > > > > > > > > > > it can be anything you want it to be, > > > > > after all, it's just 'your' idea, > > > > > your opinion, your belief. > > > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > clay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ps, be careful what you believe. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi clay, > > > > > > > > One could say that meta-thinking is the freedom from the known > as > > > an > > > > inner authority. This is exactly what J. Krishnamurti talked > about > > > for > > > > I don't know how many years. Let's hope that he was not trying > to > > > pull > > > > our legs! > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > hmmm... > > > so, if Liberation is complete freedom from the known, what is it > > > about meta-thinking that makes it a useful concept...other than > as > > > something for the ego to grasp onto and thus 'avoid' complete > > > freedom from the known, a complete surrender to not- > knowing? ...or > > > perhaps worse yet, something for the ego to grasp onto as a sort > > > of 'higher' state that is 'better' than complete freedom from > the > > > known? > > > > > > note: i use the term 'complete freedom from the known' to > subsume > > > your phrase 'freedom from the known as inner authority'. > > > > > > > > > enjoy, > > > clay > > > > > > I think of meta-thinking as a state free from psychological time. > And > > the good thing about this concept for me is that I cannot fool > myself. > > Everytime I am worried about something in the future or looking > > forward to something in the future I know that I am still trapped > in > > ordinary thinking. > > > > We can also use concepts like " freedom from the known " , but > ordinary > > thinking will get stuck on the concept without seeing any way out > of > > it. That in itself can perhaps bring about a true " freedom from the > > known " but probably only when ordinary thinking has become totally > > frustrated, such as meditating over this question if it is > possible to > > be free from the known for 30 years! > > > > Meta-thinking subsumes concepts like " freedom from the known " and > > creates a toy for ordinary thinking to play with. For some people > this > > may help them to faster realize inner peace, for other people it > will > > perhaps prevent them from finding inner peace, or the concept is > > totally useless! > > > > The experiential fact, however, is that ordinary thinking creates > an > > inner conflict, and the base of this conflict is that thought-based > > will is driven by desire which in itself is a conflict, a gross or > > subtle 'No' to the present moment. If we define peace as the total > > absense of fear, then we can see that ordinary thought-based will > and > > true peace cannot coexist. > > > > al. > > cool... > > just don't get trapped in all those thoughts. :-) > > one of the things we learn from meditation (hopefully) > is that we are not our thoughts - that there is something > behind the thoughts - observing the thoughts. > > seems like your proposing a different tool for that. > > > what is the 'inner peace' you mention? > > thanks for your thoughtful response. > clay Inner peace is the absence of inner conflict. In our ordinary daily life we are run by thought-based free will, which has its root in desire. The problem is that desire IS a form of inner conflict. Desire is our attempt to achieve our " ideal image " . So there is a constant conflict between the mental ideal image and our mental image of the actual situation in our life. If we observe our ordinary daily life we can see that desire is always in an ON state. Perhaps, during meditation, we can temporarily be free from the constant pull of desire, but in our ordinary daily living there is a constant struggle against time. Meta-thinking is not dependent on desire in the form of psychological time. In meta-thinking the desire is to feel good now in an unconditional way, independent of psychological time. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > hi al. > > > > > > > > > > " you " develop nice dreams..... > > > > > lol...the " dream-selling person " inside the life dream.... > > > > > > > > > > the life dream-movie....in which we are sitting and > watching..... > > > > > > > > > > in being the Love that we Are..... > > > > > > > > > > good morning and good day..... > > > > > > > > > > nice dreams > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > One important propery of meta-thinking is that it has its root > in > > > > newness and not in past memories. Ordinary thinking has its > root in > > > > past memories. In fact, the only way for ordinary thinking to > be any > > > > way creative is to tap into meta-thinking. Meta-thinking uses > > > newness > > > > together with past knowledge when necessary, while ordinary > > > thinking > > > > uses past memories and often fails to use newness when > necessary. > > > > > > > > The state of meta-thinking is secure in itself by default > because it > > > > has its root in the living moment, while ordinary thinking can > never > > > > be completely secure because it is based of past knowledge, > which is > > > > always limited and cannot cope with the flow of newness in the > > > present > > > > moment in a complete way. > > > > > > > > So in theory, meta-thinking is a far better state to be in. The > > > > problem is: is meta-thinking really possible or merely an idea? > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > al., > > > > > > ...how do you know that it is a " far better state to be > in " .....if > > > you don't know if it's really possible....? > > > > > > every moment of awareness create already " newness " .....why trying > to > > > invent something new....in the " newness " of awareness Itself?... > > > > > > if you watch the movie with deep arereness....there will be > something > > > new appearing....don't worry.... > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Meta-thinking is a better state because of the inherent insecurity > in > > ordinary thinking. That insecurity is conflict, because the source > for > > that process is limited past knowledge used for trying to control > the > > vast flow of life, which, of course, it cannot do in a complete way. > > > > al. > > Hello al., > > reading the conversation about the subject.... > you tell about this " ordinary thinking " ...thoughts that are related > to past......which give you " insecurity " ....and " conflict " .... > > at one side....you try get detachment from this " ordinary > thinking " .....and other side.....you want to create > something " new " .....a thechnique in order to keep being on distance > from this ordinary thinking.... > > imagine now....if one day.....this " ordinary " thoughts would > disappear.......or this " conflict " to them..... > > what would happen to your meta-thoughts....? > > it seem that you will keep this " ordinary thinking " alive.....by your > theorie of meta-thinking.... > > so....instead to get detachment from this " ordinary thinking " ....you > create maybe a stronger attachment to them.... > > Clay also mentionned meditation..... > i agree with his words.... > > wish you to get out of this " conflict " with the " ordinary thoughts " ... > > Regards and peace > > Marc My idea is that in meta-thinking the future is still important but only as a tool, or even only as a toy. If we would feel completely at peace in the moment in the sense of feeling totally fulfilled and happy in beingness itself, then ordinary thinking by itself would not function; we would lose our drive, our desire to reach a better future. We would then become like vegetables high on some Now-Soma and would not be able to function in this world. So we cannot just remove ordinary thinking, because then we would lose our ability to take care of things and our ability to make improvements in our own life and in society at large. In other words, we would lose our desire because time-based desire can only operate when we experience the present moment as incomplete. In meta-thinking the present moment is experienced as complete, as it is, but there is the desire for what is happening now. In other words, desire in meta-thinking has its foundation in the completeness of now, but that now includes the desire for the future. Therefore the drive for reaching a better future is still there, but only as a part of the completeness of this moment. In ordinary thinking, the present moment is virtually always experienced as incomplete. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:45 AM Re: How to become a meta-thinker Nisargadatta , " Clay " <clay.spencer@v...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Clay " <clay.spencer@v...> > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Clay " > <clay.spencer@v...> > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " you " develop nice dreams..... > > > > > > > lol...the " dream-selling person " inside the life > dream.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the life dream-movie....in which we are sitting and > > > watching..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in being the Love that we Are..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good morning and good day..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice dreams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One important propery of meta-thinking is that it has its > root > > > in > > > > > > newness and not in past memories. Ordinary thinking has > its > > > root in > > > > > > past memories. In fact, the only way for ordinary thinking > to > > > be > > > > > any > > > > > > way creative is to tap into meta-thinking. Meta-thinking > uses > > > > > newness > > > > > > together with past knowledge when necessary, while > ordinary > > > > > thinking > > > > > > uses past memories and often fails to use newness when > > > necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > The state of meta-thinking is secure in itself by default > > > because > > > > > it > > > > > > has its root in the living moment, while ordinary thinking > can > > > > > never > > > > > > be completely secure because it is based of past > knowledge, > > > which > > > > > is > > > > > > always limited and cannot cope with the flow of newness in > the > > > > > present > > > > > > moment in a complete way. > > > > > > > > > > > > So in theory, meta-thinking is a far better state to be > in. The > > > > > > problem is: is meta-thinking really possible or merely an > idea? > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > al > > > > > > > > > > it can be anything you want it to be, > > > > > after all, it's just 'your' idea, > > > > > your opinion, your belief. > > > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > clay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ps, be careful what you believe. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi clay, > > > > > > > > One could say that meta-thinking is the freedom from the known > as > > > an > > > > inner authority. This is exactly what J. Krishnamurti talked > about > > > for > > > > I don't know how many years. Let's hope that he was not trying > to > > > pull > > > > our legs! > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > hmmm... > > > so, if Liberation is complete freedom from the known, what is it > > > about meta-thinking that makes it a useful concept...other than > as > > > something for the ego to grasp onto and thus 'avoid' complete > > > freedom from the known, a complete surrender to not- > knowing? ...or > > > perhaps worse yet, something for the ego to grasp onto as a sort > > > of 'higher' state that is 'better' than complete freedom from > the > > > known? > > > > > > note: i use the term 'complete freedom from the known' to > subsume > > > your phrase 'freedom from the known as inner authority'. > > > > > > > > > enjoy, > > > clay > > > > > > I think of meta-thinking as a state free from psychological time. > And > > the good thing about this concept for me is that I cannot fool > myself. > > Everytime I am worried about something in the future or looking > > forward to something in the future I know that I am still trapped > in > > ordinary thinking. > > > > We can also use concepts like " freedom from the known " , but > ordinary > > thinking will get stuck on the concept without seeing any way out > of > > it. That in itself can perhaps bring about a true " freedom from the > > known " but probably only when ordinary thinking has become totally > > frustrated, such as meditating over this question if it is > possible to > > be free from the known for 30 years! > > > > Meta-thinking subsumes concepts like " freedom from the known " and > > creates a toy for ordinary thinking to play with. For some people > this > > may help them to faster realize inner peace, for other people it > will > > perhaps prevent them from finding inner peace, or the concept is > > totally useless! > > > > The experiential fact, however, is that ordinary thinking creates > an > > inner conflict, and the base of this conflict is that thought-based > > will is driven by desire which in itself is a conflict, a gross or > > subtle 'No' to the present moment. If we define peace as the total > > absense of fear, then we can see that ordinary thought-based will > and > > true peace cannot coexist. > > > > al. > > cool... > > just don't get trapped in all those thoughts. :-) > > one of the things we learn from meditation (hopefully) > is that we are not our thoughts - that there is something > behind the thoughts - observing the thoughts. > > seems like your proposing a different tool for that. > > > what is the 'inner peace' you mention? > > thanks for your thoughtful response. > clay Inner peace is the absence of inner conflict. In our ordinary daily life we are run by thought-based free will, which has its root in desire. The problem is that desire IS a form of inner conflict. Desire is our attempt to achieve our " ideal image " . So there is a constant conflict between the mental ideal image and our mental image of the actual situation in our life. If we observe our ordinary daily life we can see that desire is always in an ON state. Perhaps, during meditation, we can temporarily be free from the constant pull of desire, but in our ordinary daily living there is a constant struggle against ti Meta-thinking is not dependent on desire in the form of psychological time. In meta-thinking the desire is to feel good now in an unconditional way, independent of psychological time. al. Beloved al, Are we not going backwards on this? IMHO meta-thinking IS the absence of inner conflict. One does not 'give up' desire. One Sees that one Is free will, a distinct and self-serving thought. Meta-thinking Includes and transcends all previous thoughts and desires, proceeds to move the One Being, continuing Beyond... One means just that One. Inclusive and transcendental Being is only Lived in the NOW. Meta-thinking feels good because it accepts unconditionally whatever arises in the here and now. It is unconditional Love It is unconditional Peace It is the feeling of Bliss It is THIS. As it Is As I Am THIS Good morning world, I now See 'you' in/as my meta-thinking... ar ** 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 September 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > hi al. > > > > > > > > > > > > " you " develop nice dreams..... > > > > > > lol...the " dream-selling person " inside the life dream.... > > > > > > > > > > > > the life dream-movie....in which we are sitting and > > watching..... > > > > > > > > > > > > in being the Love that we Are..... > > > > > > > > > > > > good morning and good day..... > > > > > > > > > > > > nice dreams > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One important propery of meta-thinking is that it has its root > > in > > > > > newness and not in past memories. Ordinary thinking has its > > root in > > > > > past memories. In fact, the only way for ordinary thinking to > > be any > > > > > way creative is to tap into meta-thinking. Meta-thinking uses > > > > newness > > > > > together with past knowledge when necessary, while ordinary > > > > thinking > > > > > uses past memories and often fails to use newness when > > necessary. > > > > > > > > > > The state of meta-thinking is secure in itself by default > > because it > > > > > has its root in the living moment, while ordinary thinking can > > never > > > > > be completely secure because it is based of past knowledge, > > which is > > > > > always limited and cannot cope with the flow of newness in the > > > > present > > > > > moment in a complete way. > > > > > > > > > > So in theory, meta-thinking is a far better state to be in. The > > > > > problem is: is meta-thinking really possible or merely an idea? > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > al., > > > > > > > > ...how do you know that it is a " far better state to be > > in " .....if > > > > you don't know if it's really possible....? > > > > > > > > every moment of awareness create already " newness " .....why trying > > to > > > > invent something new....in the " newness " of awareness Itself?... > > > > > > > > if you watch the movie with deep arereness....there will be > > something > > > > new appearing....don't worry.... > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Meta-thinking is a better state because of the inherent insecurity > > in > > > ordinary thinking. That insecurity is conflict, because the source > > for > > > that process is limited past knowledge used for trying to control > > the > > > vast flow of life, which, of course, it cannot do in a complete way. > > > > > > al. > > > > Hello al., > > > > reading the conversation about the subject.... > > you tell about this " ordinary thinking " ...thoughts that are related > > to past......which give you " insecurity " ....and " conflict " .... > > > > at one side....you try get detachment from this " ordinary > > thinking " .....and other side.....you want to create > > something " new " .....a thechnique in order to keep being on distance > > from this ordinary thinking.... > > > > imagine now....if one day.....this " ordinary " thoughts would > > disappear.......or this " conflict " to them..... > > > > what would happen to your meta-thoughts....? > > > > it seem that you will keep this " ordinary thinking " alive.....by your > > theorie of meta-thinking.... > > > > so....instead to get detachment from this " ordinary thinking " ....you > > create maybe a stronger attachment to them.... > > > > Clay also mentionned meditation..... > > i agree with his words.... > > > > wish you to get out of this " conflict " with the " ordinary thoughts " ... > > > > Regards and peace > > > > Marc > > > My idea is that in meta-thinking the future is still important but > only as a tool, or even only as a toy. If we would feel completely at > peace in the moment in the sense of feeling totally fulfilled and > happy in beingness itself, then ordinary thinking by itself would not > function; we would lose our drive, our desire to reach a better > future. We would then become like vegetables high on some Now-Soma and > would not be able to function in this world. > > So we cannot just remove ordinary thinking, because then we would lose > our ability to take care of things and our ability to make > improvements in our own life and in society at large. In other words, > we would lose our desire because time-based desire can only operate > when we experience the present moment as incomplete. In meta- thinking > the present moment is experienced as complete, as it is, but there is > the desire for what is happening now. > > In other words, desire in meta-thinking has its foundation in the > completeness of now, but that now includes the desire for the future. > Therefore the drive for reaching a better future is still there, but > only as a part of the completeness of this moment. In ordinary > thinking, the present moment is virtually always experienced as > incomplete. Hi al., maybe i can understand why for some ego-minds.... " ordinary thinking " cause " conflict " ....whatever kind of... if you believe that your " future will be better " by using " Meta- thinking " .....go on... i beleive that indead....the use of Meta-Thinking has influence of your ego-mind.....because it's the invention of this same ego-mind.... and so concern the future only...of this your ego-mind.... some people are very attached to the ego..... this same people declare that they have or " are " " free will " ....... by your explanations.....about how you think that a human " work " .... about the combination of " ordinary thinking " and " desire for the future " and " Drive for reaching something... " and " ability to ...whatever " ....and... it seem that you look a human being....as being a machine....which work all the time on same way...... and you are the one ...now....who found the programm.....and so....the ability to change the programm.... do you realy believe that this Is the solution?.... if you would realy know " who and what " you are.....there would be no need to invent any technique for " a better future " ... but ok.... everybody is free to be attached to whatever he/she like to.... Regards Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:45 AM > Re: How to become a meta-thinker > > > Nisargadatta , " Clay " <clay.spencer@v...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Clay " <clay.spencer@v...> > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Clay " > > <clay.spencer@v...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " you " develop nice dreams..... > > > > > > > > lol...the " dream-selling person " inside the life > > dream.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the life dream-movie....in which we are sitting and > > > > watching..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in being the Love that we Are..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good morning and good day..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice dreams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One important propery of meta-thinking is that it has its > > root > > > > in > > > > > > > newness and not in past memories. Ordinary thinking has > > its > > > > root in > > > > > > > past memories. In fact, the only way for ordinary thinking > > to > > > > be > > > > > > any > > > > > > > way creative is to tap into meta-thinking. Meta-thinking > > uses > > > > > > newness > > > > > > > together with past knowledge when necessary, while > > ordinary > > > > > > thinking > > > > > > > uses past memories and often fails to use newness when > > > > necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The state of meta-thinking is secure in itself by default > > > > because > > > > > > it > > > > > > > has its root in the living moment, while ordinary thinking > > can > > > > > > never > > > > > > > be completely secure because it is based of past > > knowledge, > > > > which > > > > > > is > > > > > > > always limited and cannot cope with the flow of newness in > > the > > > > > > present > > > > > > > moment in a complete way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in theory, meta-thinking is a far better state to be > > in. The > > > > > > > problem is: is meta-thinking really possible or merely an > > idea? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > al > > > > > > > > > > > > it can be anything you want it to be, > > > > > > after all, it's just 'your' idea, > > > > > > your opinion, your belief. > > > > > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > > clay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ps, be careful what you believe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi clay, > > > > > > > > > > One could say that meta-thinking is the freedom from the known > > as > > > > an > > > > > inner authority. This is exactly what J. Krishnamurti talked > > about > > > > for > > > > > I don't know how many years. Let's hope that he was not trying > > to > > > > pull > > > > > our legs! > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > hmmm... > > > > so, if Liberation is complete freedom from the known, what is it > > > > about meta-thinking that makes it a useful concept...other than > > as > > > > something for the ego to grasp onto and thus 'avoid' complete > > > > freedom from the known, a complete surrender to not- > > knowing? ...or > > > > perhaps worse yet, something for the ego to grasp onto as a sort > > > > of 'higher' state that is 'better' than complete freedom from > > the > > > > known? > > > > > > > > note: i use the term 'complete freedom from the known' to > > subsume > > > > your phrase 'freedom from the known as inner authority'. > > > > > > > > > > > > enjoy, > > > > clay > > > > > > > > > I think of meta-thinking as a state free from psychological time. > > And > > > the good thing about this concept for me is that I cannot fool > > myself. > > > Everytime I am worried about something in the future or looking > > > forward to something in the future I know that I am still trapped > > in > > > ordinary thinking. > > > > > > We can also use concepts like " freedom from the known " , but > > ordinary > > > thinking will get stuck on the concept without seeing any way out > > of > > > it. That in itself can perhaps bring about a true " freedom from the > > > known " but probably only when ordinary thinking has become totally > > > frustrated, such as meditating over this question if it is > > possible to > > > be free from the known for 30 years! > > > > > > Meta-thinking subsumes concepts like " freedom from the known " and > > > creates a toy for ordinary thinking to play with. For some people > > this > > > may help them to faster realize inner peace, for other people it > > will > > > perhaps prevent them from finding inner peace, or the concept is > > > totally useless! > > > > > > The experiential fact, however, is that ordinary thinking creates > > an > > > inner conflict, and the base of this conflict is that thought-based > > > will is driven by desire which in itself is a conflict, a gross or > > > subtle 'No' to the present moment. If we define peace as the total > > > absense of fear, then we can see that ordinary thought-based will > > and > > > true peace cannot coexist. > > > > > > al. > > > > cool... > > > > just don't get trapped in all those thoughts. :-) > > > > one of the things we learn from meditation (hopefully) > > is that we are not our thoughts - that there is something > > behind the thoughts - observing the thoughts. > > > > seems like your proposing a different tool for that. > > > > > > what is the 'inner peace' you mention? > > > > thanks for your thoughtful response. > > clay > > > Inner peace is the absence of inner conflict. In our ordinary daily > life we are run by thought-based free will, which has its root in > desire. The problem is that desire IS a form of inner conflict. Desire > is our attempt to achieve our " ideal image " . So there is a constant > conflict between the mental ideal image and our mental image of the > actual situation in our life. If we observe our ordinary daily life we > can see that desire is always in an ON state. Perhaps, during > meditation, we can temporarily be free from the constant pull of > desire, but in our ordinary daily living there is a constant struggle > against ti > Meta-thinking is not dependent on desire in the form of psychological > time. In meta-thinking the desire is to feel good now in an > unconditional way, independent of psychological time. > > al. > > > Beloved al, > > Are we not going backwards on this? > IMHO meta-thinking IS the absence of inner conflict. One does not 'give up' desire. One Sees that > one Is free will, a distinct and self-serving thought. > > Meta-thinking Includes and transcends all previous thoughts and desires, proceeds to move the One > Being, continuing Beyond... > > One means just that One. Inclusive and transcendental Being is only Lived in the NOW. > Meta-thinking feels good because it accepts unconditionally whatever arises in the here and now. > > It is unconditional Love > It is unconditional Peace > It is the feeling of Bliss > > It is THIS. > > As it Is > As I Am > > THIS > > Good morning world, I now See 'you' in/as my meta-thinking... > > ar > That is correct. Giving up desire would still be a movement spawn from that very same desire. The trick is to, as you say, to transcend and embrace desire into a new form of desire. The main point is that the new desire is to feel good now. Ordinary desire cannot function if one feels good now. Ordinary desire is a 'No' to what is. It has to be. The new form of desire is a 'Yes' to what is, including the 'Yes' to change, including the 'Yes' to the 'No' in ordinary desire. Hmm... This got a bit complicated. But basically the 'Yes' is the main idea. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " you " develop nice dreams..... > > > > > > > lol...the " dream-selling person " inside the life dream.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the life dream-movie....in which we are sitting and > > > watching..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in being the Love that we Are..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good morning and good day..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice dreams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One important propery of meta-thinking is that it has its > root > > > in > > > > > > newness and not in past memories. Ordinary thinking has its > > > root in > > > > > > past memories. In fact, the only way for ordinary thinking > to > > > be any > > > > > > way creative is to tap into meta-thinking. Meta-thinking > uses > > > > > newness > > > > > > together with past knowledge when necessary, while > ordinary > > > > > thinking > > > > > > uses past memories and often fails to use newness when > > > necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > The state of meta-thinking is secure in itself by default > > > because it > > > > > > has its root in the living moment, while ordinary thinking > can > > > never > > > > > > be completely secure because it is based of past knowledge, > > > which is > > > > > > always limited and cannot cope with the flow of newness in > the > > > > > present > > > > > > moment in a complete way. > > > > > > > > > > > > So in theory, meta-thinking is a far better state to be in. > The > > > > > > problem is: is meta-thinking really possible or merely an > idea? > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > al., > > > > > > > > > > ...how do you know that it is a " far better state to be > > > in " .....if > > > > > you don't know if it's really possible....? > > > > > > > > > > every moment of awareness create already " newness " .....why > trying > > > to > > > > > invent something new....in the " newness " of awareness > Itself?... > > > > > > > > > > if you watch the movie with deep arereness....there will be > > > something > > > > > new appearing....don't worry.... > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > Meta-thinking is a better state because of the inherent > insecurity > > > in > > > > ordinary thinking. That insecurity is conflict, because the > source > > > for > > > > that process is limited past knowledge used for trying to > control > > > the > > > > vast flow of life, which, of course, it cannot do in a complete > way. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > Hello al., > > > > > > reading the conversation about the subject.... > > > you tell about this " ordinary thinking " ...thoughts that are > related > > > to past......which give you " insecurity " ....and " conflict " .... > > > > > > at one side....you try get detachment from this " ordinary > > > thinking " .....and other side.....you want to create > > > something " new " .....a thechnique in order to keep being on > distance > > > from this ordinary thinking.... > > > > > > imagine now....if one day.....this " ordinary " thoughts would > > > disappear.......or this " conflict " to them..... > > > > > > what would happen to your meta-thoughts....? > > > > > > it seem that you will keep this " ordinary thinking " alive.....by > your > > > theorie of meta-thinking.... > > > > > > so....instead to get detachment from this " ordinary > thinking " ....you > > > create maybe a stronger attachment to them.... > > > > > > Clay also mentionned meditation..... > > > i agree with his words.... > > > > > > wish you to get out of this " conflict " with the " ordinary > thoughts " ... > > > > > > Regards and peace > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > My idea is that in meta-thinking the future is still important but > > only as a tool, or even only as a toy. If we would feel completely > at > > peace in the moment in the sense of feeling totally fulfilled and > > happy in beingness itself, then ordinary thinking by itself would > not > > function; we would lose our drive, our desire to reach a better > > future. We would then become like vegetables high on some Now-Soma > and > > would not be able to function in this world. > > > > So we cannot just remove ordinary thinking, because then we would > lose > > our ability to take care of things and our ability to make > > improvements in our own life and in society at large. In other > words, > > we would lose our desire because time-based desire can only operate > > when we experience the present moment as incomplete. In meta- > thinking > > the present moment is experienced as complete, as it is, but there > is > > the desire for what is happening now. > > > > In other words, desire in meta-thinking has its foundation in the > > completeness of now, but that now includes the desire for the > future. > > Therefore the drive for reaching a better future is still there, but > > only as a part of the completeness of this moment. In ordinary > > thinking, the present moment is virtually always experienced as > > incomplete. > > Hi al., > > maybe i can understand why for some ego-minds.... " ordinary thinking " > cause " conflict " ....whatever kind of... > if you believe that your " future will be better " by using " Meta- > thinking " .....go on... > i beleive that indead....the use of Meta-Thinking has influence of > your ego-mind.....because it's the invention of this same ego-mind.... > and so concern the future only...of this your ego-mind.... > > some people are very attached to the ego..... > this same people declare that they have or " are " " free will " ....... > > by your explanations.....about how you think that a human " work " .... > about the combination of " ordinary thinking " and " desire for the > future " and " Drive for reaching something... " and " ability > to ...whatever " ....and... > it seem that you look a human being....as being a machine....which > work all the time on same way...... > and you are the one ...now....who found the programm.....and > so....the ability to change the programm.... > > do you realy believe that this Is the solution?.... > > if you would realy know " who and what " you are.....there would be no > need to invent any technique for " a better future " ... > > but ok.... > everybody is free to be attached to whatever he/she like to.... > > Regards > > Marc In meta-thinking the present moment is complete. In ordinary thinking the present moment is virtually never complete. In meta-thinking, time is in you. In ordinary thinking you are in time. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " you " develop nice dreams..... > > > > > > > > lol...the " dream-selling person " inside the life dream.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the life dream-movie....in which we are sitting and > > > > watching..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in being the Love that we Are..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good morning and good day..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice dreams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One important propery of meta-thinking is that it has its > > root > > > > in > > > > > > > newness and not in past memories. Ordinary thinking has its > > > > root in > > > > > > > past memories. In fact, the only way for ordinary thinking > > to > > > > be any > > > > > > > way creative is to tap into meta-thinking. Meta- thinking > > uses > > > > > > newness > > > > > > > together with past knowledge when necessary, while > > ordinary > > > > > > thinking > > > > > > > uses past memories and often fails to use newness when > > > > necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The state of meta-thinking is secure in itself by default > > > > because it > > > > > > > has its root in the living moment, while ordinary thinking > > can > > > > never > > > > > > > be completely secure because it is based of past knowledge, > > > > which is > > > > > > > always limited and cannot cope with the flow of newness in > > the > > > > > > present > > > > > > > moment in a complete way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in theory, meta-thinking is a far better state to be in. > > The > > > > > > > problem is: is meta-thinking really possible or merely an > > idea? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > al., > > > > > > > > > > > > ...how do you know that it is a " far better state to be > > > > in " .....if > > > > > > you don't know if it's really possible....? > > > > > > > > > > > > every moment of awareness create already " newness " .....why > > trying > > > > to > > > > > > invent something new....in the " newness " of awareness > > Itself?... > > > > > > > > > > > > if you watch the movie with deep arereness....there will be > > > > something > > > > > > new appearing....don't worry.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meta-thinking is a better state because of the inherent > > insecurity > > > > in > > > > > ordinary thinking. That insecurity is conflict, because the > > source > > > > for > > > > > that process is limited past knowledge used for trying to > > control > > > > the > > > > > vast flow of life, which, of course, it cannot do in a complete > > way. > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > Hello al., > > > > > > > > reading the conversation about the subject.... > > > > you tell about this " ordinary thinking " ...thoughts that are > > related > > > > to past......which give you " insecurity " ....and " conflict " .... > > > > > > > > at one side....you try get detachment from this " ordinary > > > > thinking " .....and other side.....you want to create > > > > something " new " .....a thechnique in order to keep being on > > distance > > > > from this ordinary thinking.... > > > > > > > > imagine now....if one day.....this " ordinary " thoughts would > > > > disappear.......or this " conflict " to them..... > > > > > > > > what would happen to your meta-thoughts....? > > > > > > > > it seem that you will keep this " ordinary thinking " alive.....by > > your > > > > theorie of meta-thinking.... > > > > > > > > so....instead to get detachment from this " ordinary > > thinking " ....you > > > > create maybe a stronger attachment to them.... > > > > > > > > Clay also mentionned meditation..... > > > > i agree with his words.... > > > > > > > > wish you to get out of this " conflict " with the " ordinary > > thoughts " ... > > > > > > > > Regards and peace > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > My idea is that in meta-thinking the future is still important but > > > only as a tool, or even only as a toy. If we would feel completely > > at > > > peace in the moment in the sense of feeling totally fulfilled and > > > happy in beingness itself, then ordinary thinking by itself would > > not > > > function; we would lose our drive, our desire to reach a better > > > future. We would then become like vegetables high on some Now- Soma > > and > > > would not be able to function in this world. > > > > > > So we cannot just remove ordinary thinking, because then we would > > lose > > > our ability to take care of things and our ability to make > > > improvements in our own life and in society at large. In other > > words, > > > we would lose our desire because time-based desire can only operate > > > when we experience the present moment as incomplete. In meta- > > thinking > > > the present moment is experienced as complete, as it is, but there > > is > > > the desire for what is happening now. > > > > > > In other words, desire in meta-thinking has its foundation in the > > > completeness of now, but that now includes the desire for the > > future. > > > Therefore the drive for reaching a better future is still there, but > > > only as a part of the completeness of this moment. In ordinary > > > thinking, the present moment is virtually always experienced as > > > incomplete. > > > > Hi al., > > > > maybe i can understand why for some ego-minds.... " ordinary thinking " > > cause " conflict " ....whatever kind of... > > if you believe that your " future will be better " by using " Meta- > > thinking " .....go on... > > i beleive that indead....the use of Meta-Thinking has influence of > > your ego-mind.....because it's the invention of this same ego- mind.... > > and so concern the future only...of this your ego-mind.... > > > > some people are very attached to the ego..... > > this same people declare that they have or " are " " free will " ....... > > > > by your explanations.....about how you think that a human " work " .... > > about the combination of " ordinary thinking " and " desire for the > > future " and " Drive for reaching something... " and " ability > > to ...whatever " ....and... > > it seem that you look a human being....as being a machine....which > > work all the time on same way...... > > and you are the one ...now....who found the programm.....and > > so....the ability to change the programm.... > > > > do you realy believe that this Is the solution?.... > > > > if you would realy know " who and what " you are.....there would be no > > need to invent any technique for " a better future " ... > > > > but ok.... > > everybody is free to be attached to whatever he/she like to.... > > > > Regards > > > > Marc > > > In meta-thinking the present moment is complete. In ordinary thinking > the present moment is virtually never complete. In meta-thinking, time > is in you. In ordinary thinking you are in time. > > al. .....sounds like in meta-thinking, illusion is in you..... and in ordinary thinking you are in illusion Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: .... > > > > > > In meta-thinking the present moment is complete. In ordinary > thinking > > the present moment is virtually never complete. In meta-thinking, > time > > is in you. In ordinary thinking you are in time. > > > > al. > > ....sounds like in meta-thinking, illusion is in you..... > and in ordinary thinking you are in illusion That was an interesting view. Instead of illusion we can say thought: is thinking in you or are you in thinking. We can focus our awareness on different things, for example we can focus awareness on our breathing and then we become aware of breathing. If we are not focusing our awareness on breathing then we are not aware of breathing. In ordinary daily life our awareness is focused on the stream of thought virtually ALL THE TIME. The reason for this is that our free will is entangled with the process of thought. Our free will is NOT entangled with breathing which means that we need not be aware of, or trying to control, the process of breathing all the time. So now we have a concept that is perhaps more interesting than meta-thinking: the separation of free will from its entanglement with thought! This new kind of free will will have its foundation in being, while the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought. From the state of being we can choose to think, we can choose when we want to use thinking! In ordinary free will we do not have that choice because that will itself is a part of thought. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > ... > > > > > > > > > In meta-thinking the present moment is complete. In ordinary > > thinking > > > the present moment is virtually never complete. In meta- thinking, > > time > > > is in you. In ordinary thinking you are in time. > > > > > > al. > > > > ....sounds like in meta-thinking, illusion is in you..... > > and in ordinary thinking you are in illusion > > > That was an interesting view. Instead of illusion we can say thought: > is thinking in you or are you in thinking. > > We can focus our awareness on different things, for example we can > focus awareness on our breathing and then we become aware of > breathing. If we are not focusing our awareness on breathing then we > are not aware of breathing. > > In ordinary daily life our awareness is focused on the stream of > thought virtually ALL THE TIME. The reason for this is that our free > will is entangled with the process of thought. Our free will is NOT > entangled with breathing which means that we need not be aware of, or > trying to control, the process of breathing all the time. > > So now we have a concept that is perhaps more interesting than > meta-thinking: the separation of free will from its entanglement with > thought! This new kind of free will will have its foundation in being, > while the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought. From the > state of being we can choose to think, we can choose when we want to > use thinking! In ordinary free will we do not have that choice because > that will itself is a part of thought. > > al. al., you write: " the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought " ....to what are this thoughts related..... this thoughts are related to the ego-mind....and so the perception of this ego-mind related world in this " dream " of perception....everything is related.....and the " individual " choice or " free will " is an illusion.....because this so called " free will " is as free as the attachment to this percieved dream.....means, there is no free will..... this words i'm writing as an answer to you....don't have the source of any " free will " .....it's just a play with words inside the time limited dream i'm aware to be in....now..... my real being is not this body mind intellect......and the awareness of This....let me all the peace and love......trying you to explain that your theorie of " Meta-Thinking " ....and the related " ordinary thinking " is just the " desire " to get a " real " " free will " ..... because you know that for some reason....your will is not free....thats already a good start..... .....at a certain point....there is no more question of " free will " ....... if one just follow the heart....and the inner love that we Are...... in the awareness of the formless Self ..... then we all are only the appearence of this formless Self........ it make not much sense to wish the end of etanglement to the " ordinary thoughts " ....if at same time, the same ego- mind.....create the etanglement to another ego-mind..... as long there is ego-mind....making resistence to real awareness.....there is no chance to escape illusion.... your heart let you feel on far you are realy " free " ..... no other choice....even if you believe there is..... Regards and peace Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > In meta-thinking the present moment is complete. In ordinary > > > thinking > > > > the present moment is virtually never complete. In meta- > thinking, > > > time > > > > is in you. In ordinary thinking you are in time. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > ....sounds like in meta-thinking, illusion is in you..... > > > and in ordinary thinking you are in illusion > > > > > > That was an interesting view. Instead of illusion we can say > thought: > > is thinking in you or are you in thinking. > > > > We can focus our awareness on different things, for example we can > > focus awareness on our breathing and then we become aware of > > breathing. If we are not focusing our awareness on breathing then we > > are not aware of breathing. > > > > In ordinary daily life our awareness is focused on the stream of > > thought virtually ALL THE TIME. The reason for this is that our free > > will is entangled with the process of thought. Our free will is NOT > > entangled with breathing which means that we need not be aware of, > or > > trying to control, the process of breathing all the time. > > > > So now we have a concept that is perhaps more interesting than > > meta-thinking: the separation of free will from its entanglement > with > > thought! This new kind of free will will have its foundation in > being, > > while the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought. From > the > > state of being we can choose to think, we can choose when we want to > > use thinking! In ordinary free will we do not have that choice > because > > that will itself is a part of thought. > > > > al. > > al., > > you write: > " the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought " > > ...to what are this thoughts related..... > this thoughts are related to the ego-mind....and so the perception of > this ego-mind related world > in this " dream " of perception....everything is related.....and > the " individual " choice or " free will " is an illusion.....because > this so called " free will " is as free as the attachment to this > percieved dream.....means, there is no free will..... > > this words i'm writing as an answer to you....don't have the source > of any " free will " .....it's just a play with words inside the time > limited dream i'm aware to be in....now..... > > my real being is not this body mind intellect......and the awareness > of This....let me all the peace and love......trying you to explain > that your theorie of " Meta-Thinking " ....and the related " ordinary > thinking " is just the " desire " to get a " real " " free will " ..... > because you know that for some reason....your will is not > free....thats already a good start..... > > ....at a certain point....there is no more question of " free > will " ....... > if one just follow the heart....and the inner love that we Are...... > in the awareness of the formless Self ..... > then we all are only the appearence of this formless Self........ > > it make not much sense to wish the end of etanglement to > the " ordinary thoughts " ....if at same time, the same ego- > mind.....create the etanglement to another ego-mind..... > > as long there is ego-mind....making resistence to real > awareness.....there is no chance to escape illusion.... > > your heart let you feel on far you are realy " free " ..... > no other choice....even if you believe there is..... > > Regards and peace > > Marc Ordinary thought-based free will has its root in knowledge and is therefore not free. The reason for this is that knowledge is fixed and limited while life is in constant flux. But to say that there is no free will is still a way to create a subtle boundary between your sense of self and existence as a whole. Existence as a whole has a will to unfold and that is free will. You are not separate from that universal will, you ARE that will, so when you say there is no free will, then you have created a duality between yourself and existence unfolding. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In meta-thinking the present moment is complete. In ordinary > > > > thinking > > > > > the present moment is virtually never complete. In meta- > > thinking, > > > > time > > > > > is in you. In ordinary thinking you are in time. > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > ....sounds like in meta-thinking, illusion is in you..... > > > > and in ordinary thinking you are in illusion > > > > > > > > > That was an interesting view. Instead of illusion we can say > > thought: > > > is thinking in you or are you in thinking. > > > > > > We can focus our awareness on different things, for example we can > > > focus awareness on our breathing and then we become aware of > > > breathing. If we are not focusing our awareness on breathing then we > > > are not aware of breathing. > > > > > > In ordinary daily life our awareness is focused on the stream of > > > thought virtually ALL THE TIME. The reason for this is that our free > > > will is entangled with the process of thought. Our free will is NOT > > > entangled with breathing which means that we need not be aware of, > > or > > > trying to control, the process of breathing all the time. > > > > > > So now we have a concept that is perhaps more interesting than > > > meta-thinking: the separation of free will from its entanglement > > with > > > thought! This new kind of free will will have its foundation in > > being, > > > while the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought. From > > the > > > state of being we can choose to think, we can choose when we want to > > > use thinking! In ordinary free will we do not have that choice > > because > > > that will itself is a part of thought. > > > > > > al. > > > > al., > > > > you write: > > " the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought " > > > > ...to what are this thoughts related..... > > this thoughts are related to the ego-mind....and so the perception of > > this ego-mind related world > > in this " dream " of perception....everything is related.....and > > the " individual " choice or " free will " is an illusion.....because > > this so called " free will " is as free as the attachment to this > > percieved dream.....means, there is no free will..... > > > > this words i'm writing as an answer to you....don't have the source > > of any " free will " .....it's just a play with words inside the time > > limited dream i'm aware to be in....now..... > > > > my real being is not this body mind intellect......and the awareness > > of This....let me all the peace and love......trying you to explain > > that your theorie of " Meta-Thinking " ....and the related " ordinary > > thinking " is just the " desire " to get a " real " " free will " ..... > > because you know that for some reason....your will is not > > free....thats already a good start..... > > > > ....at a certain point....there is no more question of " free > > will " ....... > > if one just follow the heart....and the inner love that we Are...... > > in the awareness of the formless Self ..... > > then we all are only the appearence of this formless Self........ > > > > it make not much sense to wish the end of etanglement to > > the " ordinary thoughts " ....if at same time, the same ego- > > mind.....create the etanglement to another ego-mind..... > > > > as long there is ego-mind....making resistence to real > > awareness.....there is no chance to escape illusion.... > > > > your heart let you feel on far you are realy " free " ..... > > no other choice....even if you believe there is..... > > > > Regards and peace > > > > Marc > > > Ordinary thought-based free will has its root in knowledge and is > therefore not free. The reason for this is that knowledge is fixed and > limited while life is in constant flux. But to say that there is no > free will is still a way to create a subtle boundary between your > sense of self and existence as a whole. Existence as a whole has a > will to unfold and that is free will. You are not separate from that > universal will, you ARE that will, so when you say there is no free > will, then you have created a duality between yourself and existence > unfolding. > > al. al., as i told to ar. , i would like to stop at this point the conversation....sorry about there are different " views " about the " free will " .... it's dangerous when ego-minds " think " they have free will..... i don't participate in any development of " new " theories..... if you want to do....and believe that this will happen by " free will " .....please....go on.... wish you peace and love.....by the Self....that you realy Are this Self....has " no will " ..... you can only talk about " will " ....inside the limited time and space related mind...in which you are connected....by strong attachment....seem so.......for some reason......(up to you to solve the problem) Regards and peace Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In meta-thinking the present moment is complete. In > ordinary > > > > > thinking > > > > > > the present moment is virtually never complete. In meta- > > > thinking, > > > > > time > > > > > > is in you. In ordinary thinking you are in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > ....sounds like in meta-thinking, illusion is in you..... > > > > > and in ordinary thinking you are in illusion > > > > > > > > > > > > That was an interesting view. Instead of illusion we can say > > > thought: > > > > is thinking in you or are you in thinking. > > > > > > > > We can focus our awareness on different things, for example we > can > > > > focus awareness on our breathing and then we become aware of > > > > breathing. If we are not focusing our awareness on breathing > then we > > > > are not aware of breathing. > > > > > > > > In ordinary daily life our awareness is focused on the stream of > > > > thought virtually ALL THE TIME. The reason for this is that our > free > > > > will is entangled with the process of thought. Our free will is > NOT > > > > entangled with breathing which means that we need not be aware > of, > > > or > > > > trying to control, the process of breathing all the time. > > > > > > > > So now we have a concept that is perhaps more interesting than > > > > meta-thinking: the separation of free will from its > entanglement > > > with > > > > thought! This new kind of free will will have its foundation in > > > being, > > > > while the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought. > From > > > the > > > > state of being we can choose to think, we can choose when we > want to > > > > use thinking! In ordinary free will we do not have that choice > > > because > > > > that will itself is a part of thought. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > al., > > > > > > you write: > > > " the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought " > > > > > > ...to what are this thoughts related..... > > > this thoughts are related to the ego-mind....and so the > perception of > > > this ego-mind related world > > > in this " dream " of perception....everything is related.....and > > > the " individual " choice or " free will " is an illusion.....because > > > this so called " free will " is as free as the attachment to this > > > percieved dream.....means, there is no free will..... > > > > > > this words i'm writing as an answer to you....don't have the > source > > > of any " free will " .....it's just a play with words inside the > time > > > limited dream i'm aware to be in....now..... > > > > > > my real being is not this body mind intellect......and the > awareness > > > of This....let me all the peace and love......trying you to > explain > > > that your theorie of " Meta-Thinking " ....and the related " ordinary > > > thinking " is just the " desire " to get a " real " " free will " ..... > > > because you know that for some reason....your will is not > > > free....thats already a good start..... > > > > > > ....at a certain point....there is no more question of " free > > > will " ....... > > > if one just follow the heart....and the inner love that we > Are...... > > > in the awareness of the formless Self ..... > > > then we all are only the appearence of this formless Self........ > > > > > > it make not much sense to wish the end of etanglement to > > > the " ordinary thoughts " ....if at same time, the same ego- > > > mind.....create the etanglement to another ego-mind..... > > > > > > as long there is ego-mind....making resistence to real > > > awareness.....there is no chance to escape illusion.... > > > > > > your heart let you feel on far you are realy " free " ..... > > > no other choice....even if you believe there is..... > > > > > > Regards and peace > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Ordinary thought-based free will has its root in knowledge and is > > therefore not free. The reason for this is that knowledge is fixed > and > > limited while life is in constant flux. But to say that there is no > > free will is still a way to create a subtle boundary between your > > sense of self and existence as a whole. Existence as a whole has a > > will to unfold and that is free will. You are not separate from that > > universal will, you ARE that will, so when you say there is no free > > will, then you have created a duality between yourself and existence > > unfolding. > > > > al. > > al., > > as i told to ar. , i would like to stop at this point the > conversation....sorry about > > there are different " views " about the " free will " .... > > it's dangerous when ego-minds " think " they have free will..... > > i don't participate in any development of " new " theories..... > > if you want to do....and believe that this will happen by " free > will " .....please....go on.... > > wish you peace and love.....by the Self....that you realy Are > > this Self....has " no will " ..... > > you can only talk about " will " ....inside the limited time and space > related mind...in which you are connected....by strong > attachment....seem so.......for some reason......(up to you to solve > the problem) > > Regards and peace > > Marc Any concept is within the realm of knowledge, and knowledge is good, but we must also recognize the limitations of knowledge. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In meta-thinking the present moment is complete. In > > ordinary > > > > > > thinking > > > > > > > the present moment is virtually never complete. In meta- > > > > thinking, > > > > > > time > > > > > > > is in you. In ordinary thinking you are in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > ....sounds like in meta-thinking, illusion is in you..... > > > > > > and in ordinary thinking you are in illusion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That was an interesting view. Instead of illusion we can say > > > > thought: > > > > > is thinking in you or are you in thinking. > > > > > > > > > > We can focus our awareness on different things, for example we > > can > > > > > focus awareness on our breathing and then we become aware of > > > > > breathing. If we are not focusing our awareness on breathing > > then we > > > > > are not aware of breathing. > > > > > > > > > > In ordinary daily life our awareness is focused on the stream of > > > > > thought virtually ALL THE TIME. The reason for this is that our > > free > > > > > will is entangled with the process of thought. Our free will is > > NOT > > > > > entangled with breathing which means that we need not be aware > > of, > > > > or > > > > > trying to control, the process of breathing all the time. > > > > > > > > > > So now we have a concept that is perhaps more interesting than > > > > > meta-thinking: the separation of free will from its > > entanglement > > > > with > > > > > thought! This new kind of free will will have its foundation in > > > > being, > > > > > while the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought. > > From > > > > the > > > > > state of being we can choose to think, we can choose when we > > want to > > > > > use thinking! In ordinary free will we do not have that choice > > > > because > > > > > that will itself is a part of thought. > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > al., > > > > > > > > you write: > > > > " the ordinary kind of free will has its root in thought " > > > > > > > > ...to what are this thoughts related..... > > > > this thoughts are related to the ego-mind....and so the > > perception of > > > > this ego-mind related world > > > > in this " dream " of perception....everything is related.....and > > > > the " individual " choice or " free will " is an illusion.....because > > > > this so called " free will " is as free as the attachment to this > > > > percieved dream.....means, there is no free will..... > > > > > > > > this words i'm writing as an answer to you....don't have the > > source > > > > of any " free will " .....it's just a play with words inside the > > time > > > > limited dream i'm aware to be in....now..... > > > > > > > > my real being is not this body mind intellect......and the > > awareness > > > > of This....let me all the peace and love......trying you to > > explain > > > > that your theorie of " Meta-Thinking " ....and the related " ordinary > > > > thinking " is just the " desire " to get a " real " " free will " ..... > > > > because you know that for some reason....your will is not > > > > free....thats already a good start..... > > > > > > > > ....at a certain point....there is no more question of " free > > > > will " ....... > > > > if one just follow the heart....and the inner love that we > > Are...... > > > > in the awareness of the formless Self ..... > > > > then we all are only the appearence of this formless Self........ > > > > > > > > it make not much sense to wish the end of etanglement to > > > > the " ordinary thoughts " ....if at same time, the same ego- > > > > mind.....create the etanglement to another ego-mind..... > > > > > > > > as long there is ego-mind....making resistence to real > > > > awareness.....there is no chance to escape illusion.... > > > > > > > > your heart let you feel on far you are realy " free " ..... > > > > no other choice....even if you believe there is..... > > > > > > > > Regards and peace > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Ordinary thought-based free will has its root in knowledge and is > > > therefore not free. The reason for this is that knowledge is fixed > > and > > > limited while life is in constant flux. But to say that there is no > > > free will is still a way to create a subtle boundary between your > > > sense of self and existence as a whole. Existence as a whole has a > > > will to unfold and that is free will. You are not separate from that > > > universal will, you ARE that will, so when you say there is no free > > > will, then you have created a duality between yourself and existence > > > unfolding. > > > > > > al. > > > > al., > > > > as i told to ar. , i would like to stop at this point the > > conversation....sorry about > > > > there are different " views " about the " free will " .... > > > > it's dangerous when ego-minds " think " they have free will..... > > > > i don't participate in any development of " new " theories..... > > > > if you want to do....and believe that this will happen by " free > > will " .....please....go on.... > > > > wish you peace and love.....by the Self....that you realy Are > > > > this Self....has " no will " ..... > > > > you can only talk about " will " ....inside the limited time and space > > related mind...in which you are connected....by strong > > attachment....seem so.......for some reason......(up to you to solve > > the problem) > > > > Regards and peace > > > > Marc > > > Any concept is within the realm of knowledge, and knowledge is good, > but we must also recognize the limitations of knowledge. > > al. ....thats it when knowledge become pure....it Is the pure love.....That timeless pure love..... ....and that never had to be " unfold " ....except in the illusion of an ego-mind.... " who " didn't see the Wholeness.....of Self..... means.....the love that we are wish a nice weekend.... Regards Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 16, 2005 > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman > 2005/09/16 Fri AM 09:33:22 EDT > Nisargadatta > Re: How to become a meta-thinker > > Beloved al., limitations are inclinations of the varying kind, ruminations of the flirtations of the mind who thinks by crikey i am this and not this, but this is this and that is this and i am this and you are this and nothing is this and everything is this, and who is not this. Now bend backwards and arc into more Light of awareness in the consciousness of All There Is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > 2005/09/16 Fri AM 09:33:22 EDT > > Nisargadatta > > Re: How to become a meta-thinker > > > > > > > Beloved al., > > limitations are inclinations of the varying kind, ruminations of the flirtations of the mind who thinks > by crikey i am this and not this, but this is this and > that is this and i am this and you are this and nothing is > this and everything is this, and who is not this. > > Now bend backwards and arc into more Light of awareness in the consciousness of All There Is. > > " Don't fear having nothing to do " -- Vernon Howard Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 16, 2005 > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman > 2005/09/16 Fri AM 11:09:03 EDT > Nisargadatta > Re: How to become a meta-thinker > > ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 16, 2005 Quote from Huang Po: The Enlightened man is capable of perceiving both unity and multiplicity without the least contradiction between them! Kind of levels the playing field a bit now.This is non-dual at its best. Nisargadatta , <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > 2005/09/16 Fri AM 09:33:22 EDT > > Nisargadatta > > Re: How to become a meta-thinker > > > > > > > Beloved al., > > limitations are inclinations of the varying kind, ruminations of the flirtations of the mind who thinks > by crikey i am this and not this, but this is this and > that is this and i am this and you are this and nothing is > this and everything is this, and who is not this. > > Now bend backwards and arc into more Light of awareness in the consciousness of All There Is. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
