Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:16 AM Re: How to become a meta-thinker Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman ... > > > At first desire is driving thought, then there comes the desire to > transcend thought. And that desire must be about going in the > direction into the now, while ordinary desire is trying to get away > from the now. > > al. > > > So, peace can only be found now? Not when and then? > ah, so... > > love is peace, > peace is love, > Be-ing > > This Bliss called Is, > ah, so. > > ar > Peace must be found in the now, but I will probably take some time. you betcha, there's always now, the only time of time, although multidimensionality tastes pretty good...beyond time and space;-) ** 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 13, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:29 AM Re: How to become a meta-thinker Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: ... > > Hello al., > > meditation is, as far i know, leaving body sense....means,entering in > real being.... > > it's normal that it's impossible to stay in this kind of > being....after the first (experienced) meditation.... > > I think that many Masters " practiced " meditation for long > years......and reached finally the real being......permanently.... > > to stay constantly in this state of being.....in meditation..... > does not mean that one has no more " consciousness " about the body > sense existing in this life-dream....in order to continue to have > just a normal life......without attachments to the illusion of being > this (fiction of) body mind intellect... > > but the constantly stay of this state of being..... > (meditation).....is the sign of " realization or liberation > or...whatever the exact term of It " > > then....when the meditation state is constantly present.....when it > take only few breath...to reenter again and again to this state..... > then there is the perception of no more being the " doer " ....because > the seperation to the infinite (Brahman) has gone.... > > i think that the meditation is indead no easy to enter in..... > and without inner love to.....That....the formless and infinite > Brahman...the Self........it even make not much sense to try > meditation..... > > and if so....there is, like you are told, ....there is a " seperation " > of the time during meditation....and the time " after " > > i don't see the big difference of the meditation state ....and the > described Meta-Thinking.... > > except...that for meditation, definitly, it's necessary to " put away " > (give away) the body mind intellect......to enter in real being.... > > Regards > > Marc My idea with meta-thinking is that in that state there is still an ego as a doer, but on a higher level. I have also another idea. Another type of thinking that I call integral thinking which is the same as ordinary thinking but with an increased integration with direct sense perseptions and body awareness, a form of " thinking with the whole body " and with more awareness in the present moment. al. hmm. multidimensionality? ;-) 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 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > ... > > > > Hello al., > > > > meditation is, as far i know, leaving body sense....means,entering in > > real being.... > > > > it's normal that it's impossible to stay in this kind of > > being....after the first (experienced) meditation.... > > > > I think that many Masters " practiced " meditation for long > > years......and reached finally the real being......permanently.... > > > > to stay constantly in this state of being.....in meditation..... > > does not mean that one has no more " consciousness " about the body > > sense existing in this life-dream....in order to continue to have > > just a normal life......without attachments to the illusion of being > > this (fiction of) body mind intellect... > > > > but the constantly stay of this state of being..... > > (meditation).....is the sign of " realization or liberation > > or...whatever the exact term of It " > > > > then....when the meditation state is constantly present.....when it > > take only few breath...to reenter again and again to this state..... > > then there is the perception of no more being the " doer " ....because > > the seperation to the infinite (Brahman) has gone.... > > > > i think that the meditation is indead no easy to enter in..... > > and without inner love to.....That....the formless and infinite > > Brahman...the Self........it even make not much sense to try > > meditation..... > > > > and if so....there is, like you are told, ....there is a " seperation " > > of the time during meditation....and the time " after " > > > > i don't see the big difference of the meditation state ....and the > > described Meta-Thinking.... > > > > except...that for meditation, definitly, it's necessary to " put away " > > (give away) the body mind intellect......to enter in real being.... > > > > Regards > > > > Marc > > > My idea with meta-thinking is that in that state there is still an ego > as a doer, but on a higher level. > > I have also another idea. Another type of thinking that I call > integral thinking which is the same as ordinary thinking but with an > increased integration with direct sense perseptions and body > awareness, a form of " thinking with the whole body " and with more > awareness in the present moment. > > al. .....are you sure that it shouldn't be " Mega Thinking " ?....for special mega-egos.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > dennis_travis33 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:33 AM > Re: How to become a meta-thinker > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > dennis_travis33 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:57 AM > > Re: How to become a meta-thinker > > > > > > 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 , " Stefan " > > > > <s.petersilge@o...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I am trying to step out of time without losing the > > ability > > > > to use > > > > > > > > >time. The trick is to find that part in oneself > that > > rests > > > > > > > > peacefully > > > > > > > > >in the now, and jump from the " thinker " into that > ocean > > of > > > > peace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Great to see you here, al... > > > > > > > > In the ocean of peace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You want to keep the ability to use time. > > > > > > > > I understand that and I feel with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But is it not rather that we are used by time, > > > > > > > > And it has always been this way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I guess: we can step out without problems. > > > > > > > > How can we lose something we never possessed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time will take care of us. Inevitably. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And we are free to celebrate > > > > > > > > Dance... Sing... Laugh... > > > > > > > > And rest in this > > > > > > > > Peaceful timeless moment... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My ideas about meta-thinking is that it would make us > able > > to > > > > step > > > > > > > away from psychological time. A bit speculative I > admit, > > but > > > > maybe > > > > > > not > > > > > > > impossible. In ordinary thinking, time is extremely > > important, > > > > > > almost > > > > > > > its whole foundation. Meta-thinking would be the > ability to > > > > step out > > > > > > > of ordinary thinking, a state where psychological time > > still > > > > can be > > > > > > > used, but is not compulsory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste al., > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting this talk about " meta thinking " .... > > > > > > > > > > > > you write about time.... > > > > > > > > > > > > what would happen if there were no time..... > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe everything would happen at same time....means, what > > > > happened in > > > > > > the past...and will happen in the future is only > > > > different " forms " > > > > > > comaring with each.... > > > > > > different forms " of the same material " ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > the material itself don't change.....only the appearence > of > > > > > > it.....depending on the time factor... > > > > > > > > > > > > so...without time factor......nothing realy happened in > the > > > > > > past....comparing with now....and the future..... > > > > > > > > > > > > everything related to time....like birth and death.....is > the > > > > > > appearence only....of the changeless reality... > > > > > > > > > > > > you talk about to " step out of ordinary thinking " > (time)....i > > > > believe > > > > > > that " we " are already That.....timeless being...... > > > > > > and That timeless being is it...what don't let us > completely > > step- > > > > in > > > > > > in the fiction of time related body-mind-intellect > > > > > > > > > > > > the ego-mind try hard to keep being in this fiction of > > being.... > > > > > > and invent many theories and arguments to just Be what we > > already > > > > > > Are...... > > > > > > > > > > > > sure...can be an interesting " time-game " ....a " life- > play " ..... > > > > > > acting as actors in a self-created movie....... > > > > > > > > > > > > in reality....maybe there is no movie....no actors.... > > > > > > > > > > > > there is maybe only being > > > > > > > > > > > > just being > > > > > > > > > > > > wish you a good day....in the Love that we are.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > > > > > > > One problem is that our ordinary thinking has problem > > connecting to > > > > > only being. It's almost as if the purpose of the thinking > mind > > is to > > > > > NOT be able to rest firmly in the now. When the thinking > mind is > > > > > reminded of the present moment then it discovers it, but > > otherwise > > > > it > > > > > is constanly thinking about past and future, or in some > other > > way > > > > lost > > > > > in an inner thought-world. Meta-thinking could be seen as a > > flip, a > > > > > reversal of how we experience ourselves and the world. > Instead > > of > > > > only > > > > > be aware of the now when reminded, we could perhaps get to > a > > state > > > > > where we only become aware of time when reminded, or > rather, to > > be > > > > > able to rest peacefully in the now and chose when we want > to > > think > > > > > about past and future. In our ordinary state of thinking we > > most of > > > > > the time have no other choice than to be dragged along by > > thoughts > > > > and > > > > > feelings about past and future. > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > Hi al., > > > > > > > > ok....Meta-Thinking seem to be a good technique to get better > > control > > > > of the thoughts....means, of mind.... > > > > maybe better awareness of (and when) being in mind....or > outside > > > > (outside time and space).... > > > > > > > > but what is in your opinion the different between Meta- > Thinking > > and > > > > Meditation?... > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > If we see meditation as observation of thoughts and emotions > and > > going > > > into a state of stillness, then that would probably be a step > in the > > > direction of meta-thinking. But what happens after a person has > > > meditated and is back in a busy work environment, for example? > Then > > > ordinary thinking kicks in, and we lose the ability to rest > > peacefully > > > in the moment. J. Krishnamurti talked about meditation as a > > permanent > > > state, and that is probably more in line with meta-thinking. > > > > > > I don't know if meta-thinking is possible, but I imagine such > state > > > being the ability to think about past and future without > attachment > > to > > > those thoughts. In ordinary thinking the whole sense of a > personal > > > self is dragged along with the thoughts and emotions about the > > future > > > (and past). In ordinary thinking, the sense of self is attached > and > > > inseparable from the stream of thought. When we worry about the > > future > > > then the whole " me " is worried. > > > > > > In meta-thinking the " me " would remain in the now and thoughts > about > > > the future would still be a part of that " me " but would only be > > > thoughts within the " me " /self. In ordinary thinking we can tell > the > > > difference between imagination and thoughts about reality. But > what > > we > > > cannot do in ordinary thinking is to detach our selves from the > > > thoughts about reality. In ordinary thinking, our thoughts about > > > reality is experienced as being the same as our reality. > > > > > > So meta-thinking would be yet another level of abstraction. In > a > > state > > > of meta-thinking we can see that ordinary thinking is only > thoughts > > > ABOUT reality. For example, in ordinary thinking when we think > about > > > something we will do in the future, such as going to the doctor > > > tomorrow, then the experience is that the " me " is going to see a > > > doctor tomorrow. In meta-thinking the " me " is not going > anywhere, > > and > > > the thought about " me going to the doctor tomorrow " is only a > > thought. > > > > > > al. > > > > Hello al., > > > > meditation is, as far i know, leaving body > sense....means,entering in > > real being.... > > > > it's normal that it's impossible to stay in this kind of > > being....after the first (experienced) meditation.... > > > > I think that many Masters " practiced " meditation for long > > years......and reached finally the real being......permanently.... > > > > to stay constantly in this state of being.....in meditation..... > > does not mean that one has no more " consciousness " about the body > > sense existing in this life-dream....in order to continue to have > > just a normal life......without attachments to the illusion of > being > > this (fiction of) body mind intellect... > > > > but the constantly stay of this state of being..... > > (meditation).....is the sign of " realization or liberation > > or...whatever the exact term of It " > > > > then....when the meditation state is constantly present.....when > it > > take only few breath...to reenter again and again to this > state..... > > then there is the perception of no more being > the " doer " ....because > > the seperation to the infinite (Brahman) has gone.... > > > > i think that the meditation is indead no easy to enter in..... > > and without inner love to.....That....the formless and infinite > > Brahman...the Self........it even make not much sense to try > > meditation..... > > > > and if so....there is, like you are told, ....there is > a " seperation " > > of the time during meditation....and the time " after " > > > > i don't see the big difference of the meditation state ....and > the > > described Meta-Thinking.... > > > > except...that for meditation, definitly, it's necessary to " put > away " > > (give away) the body mind intellect......to enter in real > being.... > > > > Regards > > > > Marc > > > > > > I would say this Marc: In meditation there is no separation > between I Am and This. > > > > Being > > One-Same-One > > Being > > > > This > > I Am This > > IS > > > > > > Love and Peace, > > ar > > > > Ar, > > meditation can't be described..... > in meditation there is the realization of not being this body- mind- > intellect......there is the realization of That....what we (realy) > Are....... > and not that...we are dreaming to be > > no words to desribe this....excect in a dual concept.... > > there is never a seperation of " I am and This " ....what is percieved > is related to the (own) mind..... > like during sleep....there is no seperation of the dreamer and the > dreamed..... > > after the consciousness of this (re)unification....there is the > chance to slowly loose Karma....means the wordly attachments and > tendencies..... > > this is the point on which...for many ....the spirituel path start.... > > ...until the day on which the drop is ocean....in permanent > consciousness.... > > what is the " percieved " world as drop .....if compared with > the " percieved " of the ocean....? > > Regards > > Marc > > > Only man can be aware of All: > water as drop, water as ocean, > which are both metaphors for 'God' > and only man can experience > him/herself as > separate, > part > and the totality: > > evaporation in spirit.. > > Love, > Anna Anna, there are " man " .... " trees " .... " mountains " .... " flowers " .... " animals " .......? ....in your percieved dream?.... if so....how about the " multidimensionality " you are talking about...? if so....how about the " Totality " ....? if so....how about " All " ....? maybe All.....whatever the percieved " form " (minds)....Are the appearence of It....of That...... maybe All are realized.....only the ego of " man " can't " see " it..... until the ego has gone... Regards Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > 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 13, 2005 - dennis_travis33 Nisargadatta Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:20 AM Re: How to become a meta-thinker Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > ... > > > > Hello al., > > > > meditation is, as far i know, leaving body sense....means,entering in > > real being.... > > > > it's normal that it's impossible to stay in this kind of > > being....after the first (experienced) meditation.... > > > > I think that many Masters " practiced " meditation for long > > years......and reached finally the real being......permanently.... > > > > to stay constantly in this state of being.....in meditation..... > > does not mean that one has no more " consciousness " about the body > > sense existing in this life-dream....in order to continue to have > > just a normal life......without attachments to the illusion of being > > this (fiction of) body mind intellect... > > > > but the constantly stay of this state of being..... > > (meditation).....is the sign of " realization or liberation > > or...whatever the exact term of It " > > > > then....when the meditation state is constantly present.....when it > > take only few breath...to reenter again and again to this state..... > > then there is the perception of no more being the " doer " ....because > > the seperation to the infinite (Brahman) has gone.... > > > > i think that the meditation is indead no easy to enter in..... > > and without inner love to.....That....the formless and infinite > > Brahman...the Self........it even make not much sense to try > > meditation..... > > > > and if so....there is, like you are told, ....there is a " seperation " > > of the time during meditation....and the time " after " > > > > i don't see the big difference of the meditation state ....and the > > described Meta-Thinking.... > > > > except...that for meditation, definitly, it's necessary to " put away " > > (give away) the body mind intellect......to enter in real being.... > > > > Regards > > > > Marc > > > My idea with meta-thinking is that in that state there is still an ego > as a doer, but on a higher level. > > I have also another idea. Another type of thinking that I call > integral thinking which is the same as ordinary thinking but with an > increased integration with direct sense perseptions and body > awareness, a form of " thinking with the whole body " and with more > awareness in the present moment. > > al. ....are you sure that it shouldn't be " Mega Thinking " ?....for special mega-egos.... Like my son said, a week or so ago, what if the Universe had this huge ego and created man just so it (the universe) could be enjoyed;-) that about covers it ;-) ** 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 13, 2005 - dennis_travis33 Nisargadatta Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:31 AM Re: How to become a meta-thinker Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > dennis_travis33 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:33 AM > Re: How to become a meta-thinker > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > dennis_travis33 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:57 AM > > Re: How to become a meta-thinker > > > > > > 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 , " Stefan " > > > > <s.petersilge@o...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I am trying to step out of time without losing the > > ability > > > > to use > > > > > > > > >time. The trick is to find that part in oneself > that > > rests > > > > > > > > peacefully > > > > > > > > >in the now, and jump from the " thinker " into that > ocean > > of > > > > peace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Great to see you here, al... > > > > > > > > In the ocean of peace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You want to keep the ability to use time. > > > > > > > > I understand that and I feel with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But is it not rather that we are used by time, > > > > > > > > And it has always been this way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I guess: we can step out without problems. > > > > > > > > How can we lose something we never possessed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time will take care of us. Inevitably. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And we are free to celebrate > > > > > > > > Dance... Sing... Laugh... > > > > > > > > And rest in this > > > > > > > > Peaceful timeless moment... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My ideas about meta-thinking is that it would make us > able > > to > > > > step > > > > > > > away from psychological time. A bit speculative I > admit, > > but > > > > maybe > > > > > > not > > > > > > > impossible. In ordinary thinking, time is extremely > > important, > > > > > > almost > > > > > > > its whole foundation. Meta-thinking would be the > ability to > > > > step out > > > > > > > of ordinary thinking, a state where psychological time > > still > > > > can be > > > > > > > used, but is not compulsory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste al., > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting this talk about " meta thinking " .... > > > > > > > > > > > > you write about time.... > > > > > > > > > > > > what would happen if there were no time..... > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe everything would happen at same time....means, what > > > > happened in > > > > > > the past...and will happen in the future is only > > > > different " forms " > > > > > > comaring with each.... > > > > > > different forms " of the same material " ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > the material itself don't change.....only the appearence > of > > > > > > it.....depending on the time factor... > > > > > > > > > > > > so...without time factor......nothing realy happened in > the > > > > > > past....comparing with now....and the future..... > > > > > > > > > > > > everything related to time....like birth and death.....is > the > > > > > > appearence only....of the changeless reality... > > > > > > > > > > > > you talk about to " step out of ordinary thinking " > (time)....i > > > > believe > > > > > > that " we " are already That.....timeless being...... > > > > > > and That timeless being is it...what don't let us > completely > > step- > > > > in > > > > > > in the fiction of time related body-mind-intellect > > > > > > > > > > > > the ego-mind try hard to keep being in this fiction of > > being.... > > > > > > and invent many theories and arguments to just Be what we > > already > > > > > > Are...... > > > > > > > > > > > > sure...can be an interesting " time-game " ....a " life- > play " ..... > > > > > > acting as actors in a self-created movie....... > > > > > > > > > > > > in reality....maybe there is no movie....no actors.... > > > > > > > > > > > > there is maybe only being > > > > > > > > > > > > just being > > > > > > > > > > > > wish you a good day....in the Love that we are.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > > > > > > > One problem is that our ordinary thinking has problem > > connecting to > > > > > only being. It's almost as if the purpose of the thinking > mind > > is to > > > > > NOT be able to rest firmly in the now. When the thinking > mind is > > > > > reminded of the present moment then it discovers it, but > > otherwise > > > > it > > > > > is constanly thinking about past and future, or in some > other > > way > > > > lost > > > > > in an inner thought-world. Meta-thinking could be seen as a > > flip, a > > > > > reversal of how we experience ourselves and the world. > Instead > > of > > > > only > > > > > be aware of the now when reminded, we could perhaps get to > a > > state > > > > > where we only become aware of time when reminded, or > rather, to > > be > > > > > able to rest peacefully in the now and chose when we want > to > > think > > > > > about past and future. In our ordinary state of thinking we > > most of > > > > > the time have no other choice than to be dragged along by > > thoughts > > > > and > > > > > feelings about past and future. > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > Hi al., > > > > > > > > ok....Meta-Thinking seem to be a good technique to get better > > control > > > > of the thoughts....means, of mind.... > > > > maybe better awareness of (and when) being in mind....or > outside > > > > (outside time and space).... > > > > > > > > but what is in your opinion the different between Meta- > Thinking > > and > > > > Meditation?... > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > If we see meditation as observation of thoughts and emotions > and > > going > > > into a state of stillness, then that would probably be a step > in the > > > direction of meta-thinking. But what happens after a person has > > > meditated and is back in a busy work environment, for example? > Then > > > ordinary thinking kicks in, and we lose the ability to rest > > peacefully > > > in the moment. J. Krishnamurti talked about meditation as a > > permanent > > > state, and that is probably more in line with meta-thinking. > > > > > > I don't know if meta-thinking is possible, but I imagine such > state > > > being the ability to think about past and future without > attachment > > to > > > those thoughts. In ordinary thinking the whole sense of a > personal > > > self is dragged along with the thoughts and emotions about the > > future > > > (and past). In ordinary thinking, the sense of self is attached > and > > > inseparable from the stream of thought. When we worry about the > > future > > > then the whole " me " is worried. > > > > > > In meta-thinking the " me " would remain in the now and thoughts > about > > > the future would still be a part of that " me " but would only be > > > thoughts within the " me " /self. In ordinary thinking we can tell > the > > > difference between imagination and thoughts about reality. But > what > > we > > > cannot do in ordinary thinking is to detach our selves from the > > > thoughts about reality. In ordinary thinking, our thoughts about > > > reality is experienced as being the same as our reality. > > > > > > So meta-thinking would be yet another level of abstraction. In > a > > state > > > of meta-thinking we can see that ordinary thinking is only > thoughts > > > ABOUT reality. For example, in ordinary thinking when we think > about > > > something we will do in the future, such as going to the doctor > > > tomorrow, then the experience is that the " me " is going to see a > > > doctor tomorrow. In meta-thinking the " me " is not going > anywhere, > > and > > > the thought about " me going to the doctor tomorrow " is only a > > thought. > > > > > > al. > > > > Hello al., > > > > meditation is, as far i know, leaving body > sense....means,entering in > > real being.... > > > > it's normal that it's impossible to stay in this kind of > > being....after the first (experienced) meditation.... > > > > I think that many Masters " practiced " meditation for long > > years......and reached finally the real being......permanently.... > > > > to stay constantly in this state of being.....in meditation..... > > does not mean that one has no more " consciousness " about the body > > sense existing in this life-dream....in order to continue to have > > just a normal life......without attachments to the illusion of > being > > this (fiction of) body mind intellect... > > > > but the constantly stay of this state of being..... > > (meditation).....is the sign of " realization or liberation > > or...whatever the exact term of It " > > > > then....when the meditation state is constantly present.....when > it > > take only few breath...to reenter again and again to this > state..... > > then there is the perception of no more being > the " doer " ....because > > the seperation to the infinite (Brahman) has gone.... > > > > i think that the meditation is indead no easy to enter in..... > > and without inner love to.....That....the formless and infinite > > Brahman...the Self........it even make not much sense to try > > meditation..... > > > > and if so....there is, like you are told, ....there is > a " seperation " > > of the time during meditation....and the time " after " > > > > i don't see the big difference of the meditation state ....and > the > > described Meta-Thinking.... > > > > except...that for meditation, definitly, it's necessary to " put > away " > > (give away) the body mind intellect......to enter in real > being.... > > > > Regards > > > > Marc > > > > > > I would say this Marc: In meditation there is no separation > between I Am and This. > > > > Being > > One-Same-One > > Being > > > > This > > I Am This > > IS > > > > > > Love and Peace, > > ar > > > > Ar, > > meditation can't be described..... > in meditation there is the realization of not being this body- mind- > intellect......there is the realization of That....what we (realy) > Are....... > and not that...we are dreaming to be > > no words to desribe this....excect in a dual concept.... > > there is never a seperation of " I am and This " ....what is percieved > is related to the (own) mind..... > like during sleep....there is no seperation of the dreamer and the > dreamed..... > > after the consciousness of this (re)unification....there is the > chance to slowly loose Karma....means the wordly attachments and > tendencies..... > > this is the point on which...for many ....the spirituel path start.... > > ...until the day on which the drop is ocean....in permanent > consciousness.... > > what is the " percieved " world as drop .....if compared with > the " percieved " of the ocean....? > > Regards > > Marc > > > Only man can be aware of All: > water as drop, water as ocean, > which are both metaphors for 'God' > and only man can experience > him/herself as > separate, > part > and the totality: > > evaporation in spirit.. > > Love, > Anna Anna, there are " man " .... " trees " .... " mountains " .... " flowers " .... " animals " .......? ...in your percieved dream?.... if so....how about the " multidimensionality " you are talking about...? if so....how about the " Totality " ....? if so....how about " All " ....? maybe All.....whatever the percieved " form " (minds)....Are the appearence of It....of That...... maybe All are realized.....only the ego of " man " can't " see " it..... until the ego has gone... Regards Marc the ego-mind is All There Is (the world out there Aranachula buttercups pandas seahorses 10th planet and I) (the world in here, thoughts about multidimensionality totality singularity All Nothing If so what is who is I and thoughts about Aranachula buttercups {you get the picture}) thinking separate/being separate-- separation from/than inside/outside now what/who remains? poof! no-thing poof! this a waltz in and out of the unborn unknown Buddha mind. not even That what can be spoken is only I AM not even That.... (Creation calls God God calls Creation to sew together what ego-mind has ripped apart) perhaps... 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 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > ... > > > > > > Hello al., > > > > > > meditation is, as far i know, leaving body > sense....means,entering in > > > real being.... > > > > > > it's normal that it's impossible to stay in this kind of > > > being....after the first (experienced) meditation.... > > > > > > I think that many Masters " practiced " meditation for long > > > years......and reached finally the real being......permanently.... > > > > > > to stay constantly in this state of being.....in meditation..... > > > does not mean that one has no more " consciousness " about the body > > > sense existing in this life-dream....in order to continue to have > > > just a normal life......without attachments to the illusion of > being > > > this (fiction of) body mind intellect... > > > > > > but the constantly stay of this state of being..... > > > (meditation).....is the sign of " realization or liberation > > > or...whatever the exact term of It " > > > > > > then....when the meditation state is constantly present.....when > it > > > take only few breath...to reenter again and again to this > state..... > > > then there is the perception of no more being > the " doer " ....because > > > the seperation to the infinite (Brahman) has gone.... > > > > > > i think that the meditation is indead no easy to enter in..... > > > and without inner love to.....That....the formless and infinite > > > Brahman...the Self........it even make not much sense to try > > > meditation..... > > > > > > and if so....there is, like you are told, ....there is > a " seperation " > > > of the time during meditation....and the time " after " > > > > > > i don't see the big difference of the meditation state ....and > the > > > described Meta-Thinking.... > > > > > > except...that for meditation, definitly, it's necessary to " put > away " > > > (give away) the body mind intellect......to enter in real > being.... > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > My idea with meta-thinking is that in that state there is still an > ego > > as a doer, but on a higher level. > > > > I have also another idea. Another type of thinking that I call > > integral thinking which is the same as ordinary thinking but with an > > increased integration with direct sense perseptions and body > > awareness, a form of " thinking with the whole body " and with more > > awareness in the present moment. > > > > al. > > ....are you sure that it shouldn't be " Mega Thinking " ?....for special > mega-egos.... LOL! I have actually been thinking about meta-thinking as a form of super ego. But this super ego would not be a threat to ordinary egos because it would not be in real conflict with other thinking minds, only non-serious conflict, because not even one's own thoughts would be taken as being serious. Potentially a very liberating state! al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >That is probably correct. But something in me wants to understand why >and how that peaceful state can be realized. If I learn how the whole >process of ordinary thinking operates, then I imagine that I can go >beyond it. Something in you Wants to understand. Something in you Wants to come home. You are on the way to your home Where understanding is so total That there is nothing to understand. And never was. :-) S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, September 13, 2005 1:57 PM > Re: How to become a meta-thinker > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > > Hello al., > > > > > > > > meditation is, as far i know, leaving body > > sense....means,entering in > > > > real being.... > > > > > > > > it's normal that it's impossible to stay in this kind of > > > > being....after the first (experienced) meditation.... > > > > > > > > I think that many Masters " practiced " meditation for long > > > > years......and reached finally the real being......permanently.... > > > > > > > > to stay constantly in this state of being.....in meditation..... > > > > does not mean that one has no more " consciousness " about the body > > > > sense existing in this life-dream....in order to continue to have > > > > just a normal life......without attachments to the illusion of > > being > > > > this (fiction of) body mind intellect... > > > > > > > > but the constantly stay of this state of being..... > > > > (meditation).....is the sign of " realization or liberation > > > > or...whatever the exact term of It " > > > > > > > > then....when the meditation state is constantly present.....when > > it > > > > take only few breath...to reenter again and again to this > > state..... > > > > then there is the perception of no more being > > the " doer " ....because > > > > the seperation to the infinite (Brahman) has gone.... > > > > > > > > i think that the meditation is indead no easy to enter in..... > > > > and without inner love to.....That....the formless and infinite > > > > Brahman...the Self........it even make not much sense to try > > > > meditation..... > > > > > > > > and if so....there is, like you are told, ....there is > > a " seperation " > > > > of the time during meditation....and the time " after " > > > > > > > > i don't see the big difference of the meditation state ....and > > the > > > > described Meta-Thinking.... > > > > > > > > except...that for meditation, definitly, it's necessary to " put > > away " > > > > (give away) the body mind intellect......to enter in real > > being.... > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > My idea with meta-thinking is that in that state there is still an > > ego > > > as a doer, but on a higher level. > > > > > > I have also another idea. Another type of thinking that I call > > > integral thinking which is the same as ordinary thinking but with an > > > increased integration with direct sense perseptions and body > > > awareness, a form of " thinking with the whole body " and with more > > > awareness in the present moment. > > > > > > al. > > > > ....are you sure that it shouldn't be " Mega Thinking " ?....for special > > mega-egos.... > > > LOL! I have actually been thinking about meta-thinking as a form of > super ego. But this super ego would not be a threat to ordinary egos > because it would not be in real conflict with other thinking minds, > only non-serious conflict, because not even one's own thoughts would > be taken as being serious. Potentially a very liberating state! > > al. > > > This > it-ego already is, > this state of mind where everything IS, > arises, > Is > returns > disappears > returns > arises > Is > > called now, the mind of God-wo/man. ;-) > > ar > My idea is that we have to develop the super ego, just like learning how to ride a bicycle. )) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > >That is probably correct. But something in me wants to understand why > >and how that peaceful state can be realized. If I learn how the whole > >process of ordinary thinking operates, then I imagine that I can go > >beyond it. > > Something in you > Wants to understand. > Something in you > Wants to come home. > > You are on the way to your home > Where understanding is so total > That there is nothing to understand. > > And never was. > > :-) S. Ok, but I still want to have a super ego capable of meta-thinking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > >That is probably correct. But something in me wants to understand why > > >and how that peaceful state can be realized. If I learn how the whole > > >process of ordinary thinking operates, then I imagine that I can go > > >beyond it. > > > > Something in you > > Wants to understand. > > Something in you > > Wants to come home. > > > > You are on the way to your home > > Where understanding is so total > > That there is nothing to understand. > > > > And never was. > > > > :-) S. > > > > > It is only the thinking that you are on the way home.......that creates and bars the door. > > > > toombaaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >Ok, but I still want to have a super ego capable of meta-thinking. Yes this is natural... :-))) S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: >It is only the thinking that you are on the way home.......that creates >and bars the door. Home is where is what is. Always was. No limits. It is really home And I remember this longing How it made me weep. And how it made us all weep Astray as we were... One holding each others hand And pushing it away. Now we all simply go. A caravan of love. Amazing. S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Tuesday, September 13, 2005 2:39 PM Re: How to become a meta-thinker Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > >That is probably correct. But something in me wants to understand why > >and how that peaceful state can be realized. If I learn how the whole > >process of ordinary thinking operates, then I imagine that I can go > >beyond it. > > Something in you > Wants to understand. > Something in you > Wants to come home. > > You are on the way to your home > Where understanding is so total > That there is nothing to understand. > > And never was. > > :-) S. Ok, but I still want to have a super ego capable of meta-thinking. and we are already home in meta-Be-ing. ;-) 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 14, 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: > > > ... > > > > > > > > Hello al., > > > > > > > > meditation is, as far i know, leaving body > > sense....means,entering in > > > > real being.... > > > > > > > > it's normal that it's impossible to stay in this kind of > > > > being....after the first (experienced) meditation.... > > > > > > > > I think that many Masters " practiced " meditation for long > > > > years......and reached finally the real being......permanently.... > > > > > > > > to stay constantly in this state of being.....in meditation..... > > > > does not mean that one has no more " consciousness " about the body > > > > sense existing in this life-dream....in order to continue to have > > > > just a normal life......without attachments to the illusion of > > being > > > > this (fiction of) body mind intellect... > > > > > > > > but the constantly stay of this state of being..... > > > > (meditation).....is the sign of " realization or liberation > > > > or...whatever the exact term of It " > > > > > > > > then....when the meditation state is constantly present.....when > > it > > > > take only few breath...to reenter again and again to this > > state..... > > > > then there is the perception of no more being > > the " doer " ....because > > > > the seperation to the infinite (Brahman) has gone.... > > > > > > > > i think that the meditation is indead no easy to enter in..... > > > > and without inner love to.....That....the formless and infinite > > > > Brahman...the Self........it even make not much sense to try > > > > meditation..... > > > > > > > > and if so....there is, like you are told, ....there is > > a " seperation " > > > > of the time during meditation....and the time " after " > > > > > > > > i don't see the big difference of the meditation state ....and > > the > > > > described Meta-Thinking.... > > > > > > > > except...that for meditation, definitly, it's necessary to " put > > away " > > > > (give away) the body mind intellect......to enter in real > > being.... > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > My idea with meta-thinking is that in that state there is still an > > ego > > > as a doer, but on a higher level. > > > > > > I have also another idea. Another type of thinking that I call > > > integral thinking which is the same as ordinary thinking but with an > > > increased integration with direct sense perseptions and body > > > awareness, a form of " thinking with the whole body " and with more > > > awareness in the present moment. > > > > > > al. > > > > ....are you sure that it shouldn't be " Mega Thinking " ?....for special > > mega-egos.... > > > LOL! I have actually been thinking about meta-thinking as a form of > super ego. But this super ego would not be a threat to ordinary egos > because it would not be in real conflict with other thinking minds, > only non-serious conflict, because not even one's own thoughts would > be taken as being serious. Potentially a very liberating state! > > al. 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2005 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2005 - dennis_travis33 Nisargadatta Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:06 AM Re: How to become a meta-thinker 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 ;-) ;-) ** 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 14, 2005 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2005 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2005 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2005 - Clay Nisargadatta Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:47 PM Re: How to become a meta-thinker 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 Liberation IMHO is no-thing more or less than the completion of a moment/movement of NOW Who I Am As I Am a continuum of a moment before, Now and already the step into the Unknown. Liberation, Freedom is falling into This continuum... in Faith in Love in Knowing in the Opening as This Is Bliss Enjoined in Enjoyment 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 , " 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. 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 , " 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
