Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

The Enlightenment Question

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Are you enlightened?

what a dumb question,

like leaning in an open

grave and shouting: " Is

anyone there? " If the

gravedigger is in, a

shovelful of dirt will be

your answer. If he is gone,

no answer is possible.

Can an absence, give

an answer?

 

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote:

>

> Are you enlightened?

> what a dumb question,

> like leaning in an open

> grave and shouting: " Is

> anyone there? " If the

> gravedigger is in, a

> shovelful of dirt will be

> your answer. If he is gone,

> no answer is possible.

> Can an absence, give

> an answer?

>

> Pete

>

 

Resting...

 

Relaxing...

 

Playing with your kid...

 

Listening to a melodious music...

 

 

do you miss something?

 

Do you miss something called

'enlightenment'?

 

 

....

 

 

What is enlightenment other than a

mental concept that many times, you use

to destroy a perfectly peaceful, calm,

serene moment... and get lost again in

the mental concepts?

 

Imaginations, dreams, thoughts,

questions, confusions...

 

Am I enlightened?

 

Am I not enlightened?

 

is he enlightened?

 

Is x enlightened?

 

 

....

 

 

....and, the mind is busy again!

 

The peace is forsaken...

 

The heaven is Lost!

 

 

.....

 

Maybe, that's why someone honest and

truthful like Ramana simply says:

 

There is no realization event.

 

*****

 

Peace is realization.

 

....but, that can never be enough for

mind.

 

 

Because, a mind is never content with

easy, simple, direct...

 

a mind is never content with what

already ...IS.

 

....with what is Now!

 

 

The mind is never content...

 

It needs something to seek for...

something to hanker for....

 

Something to use an excuse for....

not being at ease, peace,

relaxation... still!

 

 

It has to move...

....and, it needs an Object!

 

When many other objects fail...

enlightenment might 'still' serves as

one 'missing' Object!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/28/2005 2:06:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

I agree that the state of thinking hinders true peace from flowering.

It is not the thinking itself, but the constant state of " thinking "

which is a conflict with the flow of life, the Tao of existence. The

rigid structure which we call memory must function properly, sanely

and fearlessly, but should not be in a constant state of ON, because

that is the cause of all conflict, inner and outer.

 

al.

 

 

 

I'm in agreement that mind is a problem, but I would disagree with those who

say that the focus should be on discarding it. To begin with, mind is a

tool; the only tool we have. I see many who I perceive to be stuck in their

'evolution' because of the deeply held belief that thinkingness must end, and so

they struggle with their own thinkingness while leaving all immature conditions

in place. Thinkingness is not a choice, and while the thoughts may be fended

off for a time through some discipline that only serves to reinforce the ego

as the doer, the thoughts will return.

 

The question becomes, why do the thoughts arise to begin with? All thought

is based on the fulfillment of desire of the ego mechanism. If there is no

desire, there will be no perceived need to think as a means of desire

fulfillment. And so, desire becomes the difficulty.

 

Of course, desire doesn't obey our desire to dispense with it. The release

of desire is a conclusion drawn within the context of a high level of

awareness. As one becomes convinced that there is no dualistic fulfillment to

be had,

desires are progressively released and the focus is turned toward the

Absolute as the fulfillment of joy and peace.

 

This is a process that involves perception within the illusion that brings

one to an awareness that embraces the willingness to release the striving for

dualistic happiness. This process seemingly involves mind, and so mind is not

to be abandoned until it's proper time. The last remaining desire will be the

desire for freedom itself. This would best be the last desire to surrender,

eh?

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming> wrote:

 

>I AM Enlightened... Stefan!

>What you say?

 

My dear friend.

You ask me what I will say.

Will you listen

Like a hollow bamboo?

 

I know that you are enlightened.

So I say to you lets leave

All concepts behind.

 

Including the concept that enlightenment is impersonal.

Including the concept of beautiful melodies.

Including the concept about concepts.

Including the concept about... peace.

 

This moment as we are.

This moment we are everything.

In the face of death.

 

What does this moment know.

Is there knowledge... ?

 

Impersonal... person.

Peace... war.

We, you and me, dear friend

Are now ready to embrace it all.

Each moment as it is.

 

No more meanings, no answers.

Only what comes from a hollow bamboo.

When the wind blows.

 

Lolila

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/28/2005 2:06:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

> I agree that the state of thinking hinders true peace from flowering.

> It is not the thinking itself, but the constant state of " thinking "

> which is a conflict with the flow of life, the Tao of existence. The

> rigid structure which we call memory must function properly, sanely

> and fearlessly, but should not be in a constant state of ON, because

> that is the cause of all conflict, inner and outer.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> I'm in agreement that mind is a problem, but I would disagree with

those who

> say that the focus should be on discarding it. To begin with, mind

is a

> tool; the only tool we have. I see many who I perceive to be stuck

in their

> 'evolution' because of the deeply held belief that thinkingness must

end, and so

> they struggle with their own thinkingness while leaving all immature

conditions

> in place. Thinkingness is not a choice, and while the thoughts may

be fended

> off for a time through some discipline that only serves to

reinforce the ego

> as the doer, the thoughts will return.

>

> The question becomes, why do the thoughts arise to begin with? All

thought

> is based on the fulfillment of desire of the ego mechanism. If there

is no

> desire, there will be no perceived need to think as a means of desire

> fulfillment. And so, desire becomes the difficulty.

>

> Of course, desire doesn't obey our desire to dispense with it. The

release

> of desire is a conclusion drawn within the context of a high level of

> awareness. As one becomes convinced that there is no dualistic

fulfillment to be had,

> desires are progressively released and the focus is turned toward the

> Absolute as the fulfillment of joy and peace.

>

> This is a process that involves perception within the illusion that

brings

> one to an awareness that embraces the willingness to release the

striving for

> dualistic happiness. This process seemingly involves mind, and so

mind is not

> to be abandoned until it's proper time. The last remaining desire

will be the

> desire for freedom itself. This would best be the last desire to

surrender,

> eh?

>

> Phil

>

 

 

Good description. I can see that my mind is in conflict with the flow

of life. Thinking seems to spring out of memory and that memory is a

fixed object while life is a flowing process. In the friction between

memory and the flow of life, thoughts appear. Memory creates desire.

But that desire is also a fixed object because it is memory.

 

Memory and thoughts are valuable, but they constiture a poor sense of

self (the ego) because thought as the sole controller is inherently

conflict-ridden. There is understanding in the form of knowledge, but

that is still on the level of thought and memory. That kind of

understanding is valuable, but it is merely a tool, as you say.

Enlightenment is perhaps the ability to drop the tool when it is not

needed. When we are trapped in the egoic mind, then we see ourselves

as BEING only the tool.

 

We can use rational thinking to observe the process of thinking.

Thinking can understand itself in a conceptual way. But as spiritual

seekers, we must develop a desire for liberation. The kind of desire

created by thought will always only go around in the same threadmill

of mere conceptual understanding. The thinking mind must come to a

point where it sees that understanding on the level of thinking will

not bring liberation. One must allow one's own mental and rational

mind to go completely " ? " . Thinking can by itself never know if there

is a higher more liberated state above thinking.

 

One must put the question to oneself: " is thinking needed at all? " and

the answer coming from the thinking mind will be " of course thinking

is needed, or else one would become a vegetable " But sages are telling

us: we will NOT become vegetables by transcending thought, we will

become intelligent in the deeper sense of that word.

 

As Eckhart Tolle said: " thought is small " , and " ...not the

intelligence that is used for solving IQ tests.........all IQ test can

measure is your ability to solve little puzzles.......intelligence is

so much vaster than that! "

 

al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>This is a process that involves perception within the illusion that

>brings one to an awareness that embraces the willingness to

>release the striving for dualistic happiness. This process

>seemingly involves mind, and so mind is not to be abandoned

>until it's proper time. The last remaining desire will be the desire

>for freedom itself. This would best be the last desire to

>surrender, eh?

 

Phil, what you write is very clear.

And mind has to do its service, just as my heart has to.

 

About freedom:

Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

 

Love

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >This is a process that involves perception within the illusion that

> >brings one to an awareness that embraces the willingness to

> >release the striving for dualistic happiness. This process

> >seemingly involves mind, and so mind is not to be abandoned

> >until it's proper time. The last remaining desire will be the desire

> >for freedom itself. This would best be the last desire to

> >surrender, eh?

>

> Phil, what you write is very clear.

> And mind has to do its service, just as my heart has to.

>

> About freedom:

> Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

>

> Love

> Stefan

>

 

 

 

 

Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

 

 

 

toombary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

 

>>About freedom:

>>Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

 

>

>Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

>

 

but then...

there is no one to find it hard either :)

 

S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> >>About freedom:

> >>Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

>

> >

> >Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

> >

>

> but then...

> there is no one to find it hard either :)

>

> S.

>

 

 

The nature of thought needs a 'someone' to be the flip side of 'no one'.

 

This is the great difficulty in thought attempting to think its way through the

opacity that

is created by its own machinations.

 

Thought can see all things......but itself.

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan "

<s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> >

> > >>About freedom:

> > >>Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

> >

> > >

> > >Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

> > >

> >

> > but then...

> > there is no one to find it hard either :)

> >

> > S.

> >

>

>

> The nature of thought needs a 'someone' to be the flip side of 'no one'.

>

> This is the great difficulty in thought attempting to think its way

through the opacity that is created by its own machinations.

>

>Thought can see all things......but itself.

 

 

Hi Toombaru, yes, this is true

So there is nothing to say

Nothing not to say

I cant help

What is

 

Greetings, Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan "

> <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> > >

> > > >>About freedom:

> > > >>Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

> > >

> > > >

> > > >Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

> > > >

> > >

> > > but then...

> > > there is no one to find it hard either :)

> > >

> > > S.

> > >

> >

> >

> > The nature of thought needs a 'someone' to be the flip side of 'no one'.

> >

> > This is the great difficulty in thought attempting to think its way

> through the opacity that is created by its own machinations.

> >

> >Thought can see all things......but itself.

>

>

> Hi Toombaru, yes, this is true

> So there is nothing to say

> Nothing not to say

> I can't help

> What is.

>

> Greetings, Stefan

>

 

 

 

 

What is the nature if this " I " that can't help?

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm basically in agreement with what you say, but maybe we can help

ourselves by expounding on the ideas a bit.

 

 

Good description. I can see that my mind is in conflict with the flow

of life. Thinking seems to spring out of memory and that memory is a

fixed object while life is a flowing process. In the friction between

memory and the flow of life, thoughts appear. Memory creates desire.

But that desire is also a fixed object because it is memory.

 

 

While I agree that memory is involved in the process of attempting to solve

the problem of desire, I don't believe it is the source of desire. You notice

that bringing yourself to the present moment, without thought of past or

future, brings with it a sense of peace and contentment in the moment and so

the

conclusion is that leaving the moment, and therefore memory, is the cause of

desire. (forgive me if I'm mistaken.) But since thinking is the problem

solver of desire, what must actually be released in order to remain in the

moment

and suspend thinking is desire itself. The thoughts cease when there is no

perceived need to change anything or solve any problem. And so, the problem is

not thought, but rather desire.

 

 

 

Memory and thoughts are valuable, but they constiture a poor sense of

self (the ego) because thought as the sole controller is inherently

conflict-ridden. There is understanding in the form of knowledge, but

that is still on the level of thought and memory. That kind of

understanding is valuable, but it is merely a tool, as you say.

Enlightenment is perhaps the ability to drop the tool when it is not

needed. When we are trapped in the egoic mind, then we see ourselves

as BEING only the tool.

 

 

Agreed. Thinkingness actually has no value beyond functioning within

illusion, and the sort of thinking that circulates memory components is not

being

encouraged here. The reorganizing of memory can't possibly discover Truth and

neither can the seeking of information found within the illusion. This is so

because the illusion is a creation of consciousness in it's limited awareness.

If one is not aware of what one is seeking, it will not show up in one's

experience.

 

What is being suggested here is a focus of mind on the field of awareness

itself, where all answers can be found. This is usually referred to as

intuition. This knowing is then translated into concepts, where much is lost.

This

intuition is not enlightenment because it's not seeing wholly, but only

partially, but any seeing increases awareness and this is our goal.

 

 

 

We can use rational thinking to observe the process of thinking.

Thinking can understand itself in a conceptual way. But as spiritual

seekers, we must develop a desire for liberation. The kind of desire

created by thought will always only go around in the same threadmill

of mere conceptual understanding. The thinking mind must come to a

point where it sees that understanding on the level of thinking will

not bring liberation. One must allow one's own mental and rational

mind to go completely " ? " . Thinking can by itself never know if there

is a higher more liberated state above thinking.

 

 

 

Right. And so desire becomes both the problem and the solution. Desire

arises from a sense of unfulfilment which originates in the fact of incomplete

awareness. This is an inherent function of consciousness. In it's ignorance,

mind identifies itself as an individual and then seeks ways to create happiness

and avoid unhappiness, but since experience is one's own creation, both

polarities must be experienced and no permanent state of joy can be found.

Eventually, the seeker realizes this and turns within to find joy outside of

dualistic striving.

 

This conclusion is not arrived at without immersing oneself in the illusion

and seeing for oneself. So, even though conceptualizing is not going to cause

Truth to be known, it is part of the process of releasing illusion, and is

not to be dismissed prematurely. The master speaks correctly when he says the

mind will not find Truth, because this is not the function of the mind. The

mind is the tool that dismantles untruth. What remains is Truth.

 

 

One must put the question to oneself: " is thinking needed at all? " and

the answer coming from the thinking mind will be " of course thinking

is needed, or else one would become a vegetable " But sages are telling

us: we will NOT become vegetables by transcending thought, we will

become intelligent in the deeper sense of that word.

 

 

 

This is true. It is also said that ceasing the thinking is not a choice that

can be made. The evolutionary process will not be bypassed, although it can

be stalled if the mind is mired in stagnating concepts. One of these concepts

is the idea that the mind is of no use in challenging the concepts of mind.

The thorn can be used to remove the thorn, and then they can both be

discarded. If the mind is of no value, then the teachings of the masters is of

no

value and this is not really so.

 

Phil

 

 

In a message dated 10/29/2005 2:33:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/28/2005 2:06:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

> I agree that the state of thinking hinders true peace from flowering.

> It is not the thinking itself, but the constant state of " thinking "

> which is a conflict with the flow of life, the Tao of existence. The

> rigid structure which we call memory must function properly, sanely

> and fearlessly, but should not be in a constant state of ON, because

> that is the cause of all conflict, inner and outer.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> I'm in agreement that mind is a problem, but I would disagree with

those who

> say that the focus should be on discarding it. To begin with, mind

is a

> tool; the only tool we have. I see many who I perceive to be stuck

in their

> 'evolution' because of the deeply held belief that thinkingness must

end, and so

> they struggle with their own thinkingness while leaving all immature

conditions

> in place. Thinkingness is not a choice, and while the thoughts may

be fended

> off for a time through some discipline that only serves to

reinforce the ego

> as the doer, the thoughts will return.

>

> The question becomes, why do the thoughts arise to begin with? All

thought

> is based on the fulfillment of desire of the ego mechanism. If there

is no

> desire, there will be no perceived need to think as a means of desire

> fulfillment. And so, desire becomes the difficulty.

>

> Of course, desire doesn't obey our desire to dispense with it. The

release

> of desire is a conclusion drawn within the context of a high level of

> awareness. As one becomes convinced that there is no dualistic

fulfillment to be had,

> desires are progressively released and the focus is turned toward the

> Absolute as the fulfillment of joy and peace.

>

> This is a process that involves perception within the illusion that

brings

> one to an awareness that embraces the willingness to release the

striving for

> dualistic happiness. This process seemingly involves mind, and so

mind is not

> to be abandoned until it's proper time. The last remaining desire

will be the

> desire for freedom itself. This would best be the last desire to

surrender,

> eh?

>

> Phil

>

 

 

Good description. I can see that my mind is in conflict with the flow

of life. Thinking seems to spring out of memory and that memory is a

fixed object while life is a flowing process. In the friction between

memory and the flow of life, thoughts appear. Memory creates desire.

But that desire is also a fixed object because it is memory.

 

Memory and thoughts are valuable, but they constiture a poor sense of

self (the ego) because thought as the sole controller is inherently

conflict-ridden. There is understanding in the form of knowledge, but

that is still on the level of thought and memory. That kind of

understanding is valuable, but it is merely a tool, as you say.

Enlightenment is perhaps the ability to drop the tool when it is not

needed. When we are trapped in the egoic mind, then we see ourselves

as BEING only the tool.

 

We can use rational thinking to observe the process of thinking.

Thinking can understand itself in a conceptual way. But as spiritual

seekers, we must develop a desire for liberation. The kind of desire

created by thought will always only go around in the same threadmill

of mere conceptual understanding. The thinking mind must come to a

point where it sees that understanding on the level of thinking will

not bring liberation. One must allow one's own mental and rational

mind to go completely " ? " . Thinking can by itself never know if there

is a higher more liberated state above thinking.

 

One must put the question to oneself: " is thinking needed at all? " and

the answer coming from the thinking mind will be " of course thinking

is needed, or else one would become a vegetable " But sages are telling

us: we will NOT become vegetables by transcending thought, we will

become intelligent in the deeper sense of that word.

 

As Eckhart Tolle said: " thought is small " , and " ...not the

intelligence that is used for solving IQ tests.........all IQ test can

measure is your ability to solve little puzzles.......intelligence is

so much vaster than that! "

 

al.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/29/2005 5:31:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

s.petersilge writes:

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>This is a process that involves perception within the illusion that

>brings one to an awareness that embraces the willingness to

>release the striving for dualistic happiness. This process

>seemingly involves mind, and so mind is not to be abandoned

>until it's proper time. The last remaining desire will be the desire

>for freedom itself. This would best be the last desire to

>surrender, eh?

 

Phil, what you write is very clear.

And mind has to do its service, just as my heart has to.

 

About freedom:

Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

 

Love

Stefan

 

 

 

Yup, your heart has to seek joy and peace and love. It has to break open in

it's longing to finally be free. It's the heart that becomes willing to die

for Truth; for God, while the mind would be content to merely solve the

riddle.

 

It's not the heart that falls prey to delusion and stagnation, and so this

is trusted implicitly. The mind requires a bit of..........reconditoning. :)

 

Phil

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote:

>

>

> -

> toombaru2004

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, October 29, 2005 4:48 PM

> Re: The Enlightenment Question

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> > >This is a process that involves perception within the illusion that

> > >brings one to an awareness that embraces the willingness to

> > >release the striving for dualistic happiness. This process

> > >seemingly involves mind, and so mind is not to be abandoned

> > >until it's proper time. The last remaining desire will be the desire

> > >for freedom itself. This would best be the last desire to

> > >surrender, eh?

> >

> > Phil, what you write is very clear.

> > And mind has to do its service, just as my heart has to.

> >

> > About freedom:

> > Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

> >

> > Love

> > Stefan

> >

>

>

>

>

> Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

>

>

>

> toombary

>

>

>

> if ever I find noOne, i'm going to ... I'm so tired of hearing about noOne.

NoOne

NoOne NoOne may as well be someone with all this noise about noOne..

> Sheesh

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

There is no such thing an 'no one'.

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

toombaru2004

Nisargadatta

Saturday, October 29, 2005 8:18 PM

Re: The Enlightenment Question

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote:

>

>

> -

> toombaru2004

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, October 29, 2005 4:48 PM

> Re: The Enlightenment Question

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> > >This is a process that involves perception within the illusion that

> > >brings one to an awareness that embraces the willingness to

> > >release the striving for dualistic happiness. This process

> > >seemingly involves mind, and so mind is not to be abandoned

> > >until it's proper time. The last remaining desire will be the desire

> > >for freedom itself. This would best be the last desire to

> > >surrender, eh?

> >

> > Phil, what you write is very clear.

> > And mind has to do its service, just as my heart has to.

> >

> > About freedom:

> > Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

> >

> > Love

> > Stefan

> >

>

>

>

>

> Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

>

>

>

> toombary

>

>

>

> if ever I find noOne, i'm going to ... I'm so tired of hearing about

noOne. NoOne

NoOne NoOne may as well be someone with all this noise about noOne..

> Sheesh

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

There is no such thing an 'no one'.

 

 

toombaru

 

Oh,but of course, now

" you " tell " me " ..

 

alias noOnes., eh?

 

Toomey Toomey Toomey, I love you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

**

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote:

>

>

> -

> toombaru2004

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, October 29, 2005 8:18 PM

> Re: The Enlightenment Question

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > toombaru2004

> > Nisargadatta

> > Saturday, October 29, 2005 4:48 PM

> > Re: The Enlightenment Question

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> > > >This is a process that involves perception within the illusion that

> > > >brings one to an awareness that embraces the willingness to

> > > >release the striving for dualistic happiness. This process

> > > >seemingly involves mind, and so mind is not to be abandoned

> > > >until it's proper time. The last remaining desire will be the desire

> > > >for freedom itself. This would best be the last desire to

> > > >surrender, eh?

> > >

> > > Phil, what you write is very clear.

> > > And mind has to do its service, just as my heart has to.

> > >

> > > About freedom:

> > > Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

> > >

> > > Love

> > > Stefan

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

> >

> >

> >

> > toombary

> >

> >

> >

> > if ever I find noOne, i'm going to ... I'm so tired of hearing about

noOne. NoOne

> NoOne NoOne may as well be someone with all this noise about noOne..

> > Sheesh

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> There is no such thing an 'no one'.

>

>

> toombaru

>

> Oh,but of course, now

> " you " tell " me " ..

>

> alias noOnes., eh?

>

> Toomey Toomey Toomey, I love you.

**

>

 

 

 

Love is warm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/29/2005 1:49:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

cptc writes:

 

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >This is a process that involves perception within the illusion that

> >brings one to an awareness that embraces the willingness to

> >release the striving for dualistic happiness. This process

> >seemingly involves mind, and so mind is not to be abandoned

> >until it's proper time. The last remaining desire will be the desire

> >for freedom itself. This would best be the last desire to

> >surrender, eh?

>

> Phil, what you write is very clear.

> And mind has to do its service, just as my heart has to.

>

> About freedom:

> Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

>

> Love

> Stefan

>

 

 

 

 

Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

 

 

 

toombary

 

 

 

 

 

True, and so it becomes a non-conceptual, non-choice attribute of awareness?

This seemingly occurs when one is convinced that he, as a human, has no

control over his experience and is willing to stop trying. Can one be convinced

of that?

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/29/2005 2:41:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

cptc writes:

 

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> >>About freedom:

> >>Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

>

> >

> >Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

> >

>

> but then...

> there is no one to find it hard either :)

>

> S.

>

 

 

The nature of thought needs a 'someone' to be the flip side of 'no one'.

 

This is the great difficulty in thought attempting to think its way through

the opacity that

is created by its own machinations.

 

Thought can see all things......but itself.

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

And so, mayhaps it becomes a matter of becoming willing to 'look' rather

than think?

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/29/2005 5:00:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

nli10u writes:

 

if ever I find noOne, i'm going to ... I'm so tired of hearing about noOne.

NoOne NoOne NoOne may as well be someone with all this noise about noOne..

Sheesh

 

 

 

If you meet " NoOne " on the road, kill him! :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/29/2005 10:21:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

cptc writes:

 

The nature of thought needs a 'someone' to be the flip side of 'no one'.

>

> This is the great difficulty in thought attempting to think its way

through

> the opacity that

> is created by its own machinations.

>

> Thought can see all things......but itself.

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> And so, mayhaps it becomes a matter of becoming willing to 'look' rather

> than think?

>

> Phil

 

 

 

 

That presupposes a distinct and separate 'one' who can become willing to

look.

 

toombaru

 

 

 

Well, let's see if 'I' can somehow wriggle my way out of this one. Hehe.

There is no separate human, but there is an individualized aspect of

consciousness which is the author of the individualized dream. The dream is

'occurring' as all dreams do, as demonstrated by the fact that it is being

experienced.

 

It was said here that there is no dreamer. In the context of a separate

dreamer, this is true, but from the perspective of consciousness, which you are,

there is indeed a dreamer. This dreamer is not an individual but rather

consciousness itself. It is this individualized aspect of consciousness that has

misidentified itself as the dream character. The dream character itself has no

such ability to identify a self.

 

Within the context of the dream, this aspect of consciousness does undergo a

temporal evolution of awareness, and it does experience the awakening from

the dream. What it awakens to, however, is not an individuation at all but

rather the totality of consciousness itself. Our concern is only about the

experience of the dream of individuality, which this misidentifying aspect of

consciousness wants to end. To say that it's a dream does not mean there is not

the experience of it ending.

 

As long as identity is firmly entrenched as the human, it can be seen that

there is no free will, no choice, nothing that can be done within the dream to

bring about awareness. And yet, awareness does increase and awakening does

experientially occur within the dream.

 

All that is required is the willingness to awaken. This is not a willingness

caused by the human, but rather a state resulting from a level of awareness

of that aspect of consciousness, and this awareness comes about through the

exploration of the dream. The willingness is real, even though it's not

brought about by any human choice. Awareness occurs, even though the human does

not

cause it to occur.

 

And so, the willingness to look, even though it is occurring in the dream,

is actually willingness that arises from consciousness as a result of an

appropriate level of awareness.

 

The human does not choose this, and consciousness does not choose it as

such, but only within the framework of it's own dream. Perhaps what can be said

is that the willingness to 'look' will occur before awakening occurs, and the

aspect of consciousness that is creating your particular dream experience may

'choose' to do this now if it is sufficiently aware of Self to do so.

 

Hearing the suggestion that one may be willing to look, then, is not a

meaningless statement in the context of the totality of the dream experience.

 

Anybody buy that one? :)

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/29/2005 11:24:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

cptc writes:

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/29/2005 5:00:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> nli10u@c... writes:

>

> if ever I find noOne, i'm going to ... I'm so tired of hearing about

noOne.

> NoOne NoOne NoOne may as well be someone with all this noise about

noOne..

> Sheesh

>

>

>

> If you meet " NoOne " on the road, kill him! :)

>

 

 

 

It isn't NoOne that you need to worry about......it is the belief in a

certain SomeOne that

gives you trouble.

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

Yeah, but killing it isn't an acceptable option.

 

It

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/29/2005 11:46:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

 

When the question " is thinking needed? " is put it is the mind itself

that is questioning its own functioning. The answer is of course that

the mind doesn't know. It doesn't know if there exists a higher level

of functioning that transcends thought. But at least, when asking that

question one has stepped out of the idea that thinking is the highest

state possible. The truth may be that thinking is the highest state

possible, and that makes the seeker only trying to find something that

does not exist. On the other hand, the truth may be that thought CAN

be transcended and therefore to be stuck on the level of thought will

only create further suffering.

 

al.

 

 

 

It may, or may not, be helpful, but I know there is a knowing beyond

thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/29/2005 11:48:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

cptc writes:

 

Well, let's see if 'I' can somehow wriggle my way out of this one. Hehe.

> There is no separate human, but there is an individualized aspect of

> consciousness which is the author of the individualized dream.

 

 

Are there separate waves on the ocean?

 

 

 

There are waves.

 

 

 

 

The dream is

> 'occurring' as all dreams do, as demonstrated by the fact that it is being

 

> experienced.

Are the hallucinations experienced under the influence of LSD an indicator

of a substanital

reality?

Are the people in you dream last night real because you 'experienced' them?

 

 

 

 

I was not addressing reality or unreality. Experience of illusion is still

experience, is it not? Or do you deny that anything is being experienced in

spite of your experiencing it?

 

 

 

> It was said here that there is no dreamer. In the context of a separate

> dreamer, this is true, but from the perspective of consciousness, which

you are,

> there is indeed a dreamer.

Is consciousness a good and impartial observer of its own content?

 

 

 

Clearly not, or it would not be possible to create you and identify with

that body.

 

 

 

 

This dreamer is not an individual but rather

> consciousness itself. It is this individualized aspect of consciousness

that has

> misidentified itself as the dream character. The dream character itself

has no

> such ability to identify a self.

Does the dream character or 'self' exist outside of the dream?

 

 

 

 

Of course not.

 

 

 

 

> Within the context of the dream, this aspect of consciousness does undergo

a

> temporal evolution of awareness, and it does experience the awakening

from

> the dream.

Is this 'awakening' outside of the dream?

 

 

 

From the dream.

 

 

 

What it awakens to, however, is not an individuation at all but

> rather the totality of consciousness itself.

So 'consciousness' can be torn apart......and then reassembled?

 

 

 

Of course not.

Is your desk separate from your chair? It certainly seems so, but it's not.

Does the seeming so make it so?

 

 

 

Our concern is only about the

> experience of the dream of individuality, which this misidentifying aspect

of

> consciousness wants to end. To say that it's a dream does not mean there

is not

> the experience of it ending.

" Our' concern?

There are more of us the one?

 

 

 

Yes, there are over 6 billion dream characters here. Haven't you noticed?

 

 

 

 

> As long as identity is firmly entrenched as the human, it can be seen that

 

> there is no free will, no choice, nothing that can be done within the

dream to

> bring about awareness. And yet, awareness does increase and awakening does

 

> experientially occur within the dream.

To whom does it occur?

 

 

 

Consciousness. Is there another whom?

 

 

 

 

> All that is required is the willingness to awaken.

That presupposes a separation that can will its own unseparation.

 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

 

 

 

 

This is not a willingness

> caused by the human, but rather a state resulting from a level of

awareness

> of that aspect of consciousness, and this awareness comes about through

the

> exploration of the dream. The willingness is real, even though it's not

> brought about by any human choice. Awareness occurs, even though the human

does

not

> cause it to occur.

>

> And so, the willingness to look, even though it is occurring in the dream,

 

> is actually willingness that arises from consciousness as a result of an

> appropriate level of awareness.

There are levels in awareness?

 

 

 

It's a figure of speech.

 

 

 

 

 

It is all merely mind.....attempting to figure itself out with the only tool

that it has.....which

is conceptual thought.

 

......a tool that is simply not up to the task.

 

It is attempting to remove a non-existent goose egg.....from a non-existent

bottle....and

will continue to do so........until it doesn't.

 

 

 

..........and all of that is an integral part of this most magnificent dream.

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

All true. Yes, it is part of the dream, and I'm rather enjoying it. I had

hoped that someone would have the grace to allow the attempt, without the need

to destroy it. I see value in expanding concepts at this point in my

awareness, as has been mentioned. It was not my intention to finally solve the

riddle

of God. Hehe.

 

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* I got a little lost on that one. ;)

.... I think it has to do with the use of the word

'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

sense of self remains???

 

* I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

 

 

Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the Truth as the bottom line,

so to speak, but this is just what occurs within the dream. Consciousness

already contains the Truth and all that's required is for consciousness to focus

on it's own awareness. When the dream character is fed up with the dream and

surrenders and 'looks', consciousness turns it's focus on itself. The stuff

going on in the dream is just the outpicturing of the focus of consciousness.

 

Nothing is actually done within the dream. Everything 'occurs' within

consciousness itself, but consciousness is witnessing the dream. Just as in your

nightly dreams, nothing that seemingly occurs directly affects you, the dreamer,

but the experience of the dream has affected you indirectly. This doesn't

mean that anything can be done from within the dream, but you are creating and

perceiving it all. The dream is not meaningless.

 

 

The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function of awareness. From the

perspective of the dream, when it is clear that happiness cannot be found in the

illusion, and thinkingness cannot cause awakening to occur, all desire is

abandoned because it's understood that desire cannot be fulfilled, seeking ends,

struggle ends, surrender occurs. This is the outpicturing of a high level of

awareness that has all but removed the focus of consciousness on the illusion.

What remains is Truth.

 

I'm suggesting that all of this comes about through the exploration of the

illusion. It is consciousness that is exploring, even though it identifies

itself as a human.

 

 

When consciousness focusses on it's own content, awakening from the dream

occurs, but that content reveals that there never was any separation from the

totality of awareness, and so 'one' does not awaken to a sense of separate

self.

 

I hope that helps clarify my ramblings a little.

 

Phil

 

 

 

In a message dated 10/29/2005 11:40:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

asimpjoy writes:

 

>

> That presupposes a distinct and separate 'one' who can become

willing to

> look.

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> Well, let's see if 'I' can somehow wriggle my way out of this one.

Hehe.

> There is no separate human, but there is an individualized aspect

of

> consciousness which is the author of the individualized dream. The

dream is

> 'occurring' as all dreams do, as demonstrated by the fact that it

is being

> experienced.

>

> It was said here that there is no dreamer. In the context of a

separate

> dreamer, this is true, but from the perspective of consciousness,

which you are,

> there is indeed a dreamer. This dreamer is not an individual but

rather

> consciousness itself. It is this individualized aspect of

consciousness that has

> misidentified itself as the dream character. The dream character

itself has no

> such ability to identify a self.

>

> Within the context of the dream, this aspect of consciousness does

undergo a

> temporal evolution of awareness, and it does experience the

awakening from

> the dream. What it awakens to, however, is not an individuation at

all but

> rather the totality of consciousness itself. Our concern is only

about the

> experience of the dream of individuality, which this misidentifying

aspect of

> consciousness wants to end. To say that it's a dream does not mean

there is not

> the experience of it ending.

>

> As long as identity is firmly entrenched as the human, it can be

seen that

> there is no free will, no choice, nothing that can be done within

the dream to

> bring about awareness. And yet, awareness does increase and

awakening does

> experientially occur within the dream.

>

> All that is required is the willingness to awaken. This is not a

willingness

> caused by the human, but rather a state resulting from a level of

awareness

> of that aspect of consciousness, and this awareness comes about

through the

> exploration of the dream. The willingness is real, even though

it's not

> brought about by any human choice. Awareness occurs, even though

the human does not

> cause it to occur.

>

> And so, the willingness to look, even though it is occurring in the

dream,

> is actually willingness that arises from consciousness as a result

of an

> appropriate level of awareness.

>

> The human does not choose this, and consciousness does not choose

it as

> such, but only within the framework of it's own dream. Perhaps what

can be said

> is that the willingness to 'look' will occur before awakening

occurs, and the

> aspect of consciousness that is creating your particular dream

experience may

> 'choose' to do this now if it is sufficiently aware of Self to do

so.

>

> Hearing the suggestion that one may be willing to look, then, is

not a

> meaningless statement in the context of the totality of the dream

experience.

>

> Anybody buy that one? :)

>

> Phil

 

* I got a little lost on that one. ;)

.... I think it has to do with the use of the word

'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

sense of self remains???

 

* I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 1:44:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

nli10u writes:

 

And so, mayhaps it becomes a matter of becoming willing to 'look' rather

than think?

 

Phil

 

 

look and see, and see who looks

 

Ana

 

 

 

It might be scary to see myself staring back at me. Hehe.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...