Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

The Enlightenment Question

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation.

What >you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that.

 

Haha... I again have to say with Werner (the warner): I wish you good

luck becoming a tree (I mean a REAL tree). (!!!)

 

Sorry, I am in that mood... maybe it is the Divali energy (happy

Divali to everybody, BTW!!!)... or in fact some laugh gas leakage in

the neighbourhood as Ana suspects (lalilo)... nevertheless sometimes

its hard to stay serious in face of such serious discussions. But this

does not mean that I want to devalue those thoughts in any way!!!

Really not. It just occured to me that the funny side of it is even

funnier.

 

I am reminded on Rishis words:

SILENCE IS HALLUCINATION! WORDS ARE ILLUSIONS!! BOTH ARE EGOES!

 

Excellent!

 

As I have said

Lalilo

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

toombaru2004

Nisargadatta

Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM

Re: The Enlightenment Question

 

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> cptc@w... writes:

>

>

> Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal cortex of

> the human brain.

>

> It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new

> possibilities.............................save one..........the ability to

> see itself.

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What

> you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that.

>

> Phil

>

 

That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity.

 

The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom.

 

Look for this king......when the body dies.

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

 

how can " you " be so certain,

of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm?

 

Ana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**

 

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

> Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM

> Re: The Enlightenment Question

>

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > cptc@w... writes:

> >

> >

> > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal cortex

of

> > the human brain.

> >

> > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new

> > possibilities.............................save one..........the ability

to

> > see itself.

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> >

> >

> > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What

> > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that.

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

> That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity.

>

> The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom.

>

> Look for this king......when the body dies.

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

>

> how can " you " be so certain,

> of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm?

>

> Ana

>

>

**

>

 

 

Only the ego speaks of being everything.

 

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

> Only the ego speaks of being everything.

 

" Only " ???

Is there anything else except the ego that can speak?

 

lolila

Stefan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

>

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

>

> > Only the ego speaks of being everything.

>

> " Only " ???

> Is there anything else except the ego that can speak?

>

> lolila

> Stefan

>

 

 

 

Only a few African Grey parrots..........and KoKo the gorilla.

 

 

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

>

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

> >

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

> >

> > > Only the ego speaks of being everything.

> >

> > " Only " ???

> > Is there anything else except the ego that can speak?

> >

> > lolila

> > Stefan

> >

>

>

>

> Only a few African Grey parrots..........and KoKo the gorilla.

>

>

> :-)

>

 

 

 

........but they aren't foolish enough to pretend that they are everything.

 

 

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm Toomb,

 

The world is indeed one's own creation, and it is good that you

stepped in to point at that there is no creator. The world is just a

limited personal view, tinted with one's likes and dislikes, with

one's fears and hopes. You are indeed the world, because this world

is created and projected by your brain.

 

But to deny that the world does exist, that a traffic light is

just a dream I only can warn: Watch the trafic and watch out if any

police is arround.

 

Werner

 

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

>

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

wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > toombaru2004

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM

> > Re: The Enlightenment Question

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard

Time,

> > > cptc@w... writes:

> > >

> > >

> > > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the

frontal cortex of

> > > the human brain.

> > >

> > > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness

infinite new

> > > possibilities.............................save

one..........the ability to

> > > see itself.

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your

creation. What

> > > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that.

> > >

> > > Phil

> > >

> >

> > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity.

> >

> > The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary

kingdom.

> >

> > Look for this king......when the body dies.

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > how can " you " be so certain,

> > of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm?

> >

> > Ana

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > **

> >

>

>

> Only the ego speaks of being everything.

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote:

 

>

>But to deny that the world doesn't exist, that a traffic light is

>just a dream I only can warn: Watch the trafic and watch out if any

>police is arround.

 

haha

 

Stefan

 

BTW, Werner, before I forget, I usually receive your postings

including your drafts. This means twice, sometimes even three or four

times. Are you aware (!) that deleting them does not prevent them to

be sent out via the mailinglist? Not that I mind, I love chaos. Just

thought you should be informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

 

>So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of

>everything and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting

>approach. How's that working for ya?

 

Ha! He is maybe not trapped but he is trapping you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:47 PM

Re: Re: The Enlightenment Question

 

 

 

In a message dated 10/30/2005 2:41:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,

cptc writes:

 

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

>

>

> -

> toombaru2004

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM

> Re: The Enlightenment Question

>

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > cptc@w... writes:

> >

> >

> > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal

cortex of

> > the human brain.

> >

> > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new

> > possibilities.............................save one..........the

ability to

> > see itself.

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> >

> >

> > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What

 

> > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that.

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

> That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity.

>

> The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom.

>

> Look for this king......when the body dies.

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

>

> how can " you " be so certain,

> of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm?

>

> Ana

 

LOL Dr. Phil I presume, eureka, I have found him at last!!

 

LOL, chuckle, hehe and haha

 

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> **

>

 

 

Only the ego speaks of being everything.

 

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

 

 

So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of everything

and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's

that working for ya?

 

Phil

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 5:33:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,

asimpjoy writes:

 

* There is always the bad and the good,

the pleasure and the pain, as you cannot

have one without the other, while living

from a dualistic perspective?

 

 

 

In the long term, there will always be a balance because you create the

duality and place the fulcrum on which it's balanced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Yes. That reminds me about you saying

something about having no control over

your experiences.

.... What do you mean by that, because it

seems I DO have SOME control, and you are

saying it is just an illusion? How does that work?

 

As a dream character, the human cannot control the dream, since it is itself

dreamed. There is no " I " present anywhere within the dreamscape any more

than there is in your nightly dreams. Consciousness will dream a dream of

control or a dream of loss of control. This is an outpicturing of awareness

rather

than a choosing of dream content, and so even consciousness does not

'control' the dream events as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: This awareness doesn't come about by hearing somebody

> talk about it because it's not a concept. However, by

> focussing attention on the idea and releasing thoughts

> about it, and just 'looking' to see if it's true, a genuine

> realization might come about outside of the thinkingness

> of mind.

 

* Yes, but how is 'awareness' experienced

to be different than just the body/brain

perception of the physical organism.

 

The product of mentation is a conclusion, rationally derived by organizing

memory components in a logical order. Awareness is initially experienced as a

knowing that occurs all at once, as a 'flash of insight'. I'm sure you've

experienced this, although you may not have noticed it. As mentioned, the mind

immediately 'kicks in' and conceptualizes that insight, which requires a moment

of time. Ego will then take credit for the realization and imagine that it

resulted from the thinking process, while actually it occurred 'between' the

thoughts and in spite of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: The same thing can be done with many other ideas. The

> possibility of surrendering all struggle and still being

> able to survive can be looked at.

 

* Yes, but ALL struggle? Don't you mean

all psychological struggle of thought as

desire/fear. This is a little ambiguous,

because I 'justify' the struggle and the

concern about the work that I am required

to do to earn a living. I think about it,

and I may worry about it, and there is a

stress and hyper-vigilance, etc.

.... It appears this is a factor that

prevents surrender, and then, of course, I

also see the reluctance to ego-death, and

so surrender does not come 'in total', but

in many other littler things it does.

 

All struggle is psychological struggle. It has nothing to do with doingness.

Doing can be done with or without struggle. Psychological struggle does not

cause things to be done and in fact interferes with the efficiency of any

doing process. This focus of consciousness also creates more events in the

dream

that seemingly need to be struggled with.

There are many 'levels' of surrender. It ends when the dream ends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* That makes sense, intellectually, and at

times perhaps there may be a glimpse, but on

the whole the identification with the body is

too 'strong', and the 'feeling, that I am the

body persists?

 

It persists here too because the senses keep reflecting that, but it can be

weakened dramatically by looking at the truth of the matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* I am consciousness taking the form of

a human, which is really the 'objective'

awareness looking to expand itself back

to pure subjective awareness?

.... The wholeness of the Self is contained

in the very awareness content of conscious-

ness. Am I getting this right. I am looking

and saying it as it appears to me up to the

level of my understanding.

 

There ya go. :)

Are you seeing it in your awareness or in your thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: Yes, it all 'happens' within consciousness. The

> distinction is just conceptual, but the point is that

> the dream character never causes anything to occur,

> but is rather 'caused'.

 

* '... the dream character never causes

anything to occur ...'. Well, Doesn't it

manipulate 'dream elements' within the,

and including itself? What distinction is

only 'conceptual'.

 

The conceptual distinction is that things 'occur' in the dreamscape and that

the dream is 'occurring' in consciousness. Everything occurs within

consciousness.

 

Again, dream characters can't 'do' anything. They have no independent

volition any more than a cartoon character in an animated film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Interesting. I see. So, consciousness

'imagines' via 'thought', that it is an

individualized human. So, this is what

you mean when you say the dream character

does not cause anything to occur, it is

still only consciousness doing this, from

its position of objectified awareness?

 

Yes, although it should be mentioned that thought is a dream character thing

only. Consciousness does not think. It has no mechanism by which to do this,

no time in which to do it, and no need for it. Consciousness is simply aware

of that which it is aware. The dream is the outpicturing of this awareness

'content'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: The human itself is of no consequence.

 

* Well, that's easy to say and even

intellectually understand, but isn't

it also important to 'realize' it. I

may agree the human is of no consequence,

but I don't actually 'feel' that way,

and I am not able to live that way.

 

Yeah, I meant within the context of our concepts here. It plays no actual

role in causing anything to occur. It's a little like a lunar rover that

provides for perception/ experience/ memory/ thought processing. That's all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: What's 'listening' is consciousness and what's

> becoming aware is consciousness. If this is realized

> (within consciousness) then the human stops trying to

> do anything in the dream and the focus (again within

> consciousness) is turned on itself to notice it's own

> contents. This 'results' in new awareness of that

> content, which is awareness itself.

 

* Again, very well said. It makes sense.

.... The critical threshold whereby the shift

of focus will occur in its own 'time' then,

and, other than, that there is nothing that

can be done?

 

Positioned as consciousness, it is indeed possible to turn one's focus on

the content of awareness and expand that awareness. It must be clear that it is

not the human that is doing this, or all that will be found is the thought

content of mind.

 

However, it is not your human choice to do this, because the human has no

choice. It is also not the choice of consciousness to do this or you would be

able to do that, since you are that consciousness. So, what this means is that

awareness must progress to the point where the expanded content begins to

cause the focus to be removed from the illusion and turned on itself. This

awareness will then be outpictured as a dream in which this is occurring.

 

The paradox is that you, as consciousness, cause your own awareness of Self

to occur, but you have no means by which to alter how that occurs. In this

way, it can be said that the totality of awareness itself determines your

evolution, and you're just along for the ride and might as well enjoy the

scenery.

Hehe. However, you may want to pay attention to your own dream. (Says the

other dream character)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* How are dualities self-created? I have

to choose to do this task or that one in

determining how to manage my time and my

business obligations, for example.

.... Help me to understand the practicality

in this way of 'seeing/action' while living

in modern society.

 

Well, let's start with the larger picture first. The dream experience is a

manifestation of limitation, and the experience of limitation brings with it a

sense of lack which seeks wholeness. This sense is what drives the whole

process of the expansion of awareness. It also results in a feeling of need.

The

mind examines this need and seeks ways of fulfilling it, which is what

thinking is all about. In one way or another, thought is being used to fulfill

a

desire.

 

In this process, it begins to identify and name all the dream objects so

that it can determine what might fulfill these desires and what won't. This is

the creation of duality. There's good/bad, safe/unsafe, beautiful/ugly,

pleasure/pain, happy/unhappy, etc. There's nothing intrinsically dualistic about

anything until we define it in opposite polarities according to how well it

might fulfill our desires.

 

Since the dreamscape is created by our focus of consciousness, and we

necessarily define happy against the opposite perception of unhappy, we bring

both

into our perception. If we succeed in tipping the balance of duality in favor

of the happy polarity, we find that this doesn't eliminate the desire

because the desire originates in our original longing for wholeness rather than

in

the pleasures of the illusion, and so we move our balance point for the

duality to our present circumstances and normalize to that experience. We then

repeat the process by redefining what would be pleasurable and what would be

unpleasureable and do it all over again,........ until we realize it isn't

working.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.... The problem of choice seems to be

one of surrender and spontaneity? The

survival of 'the me' seems tenacious.

What is holding one? Why does ignorance

persist?

 

As far as consciousness knows, that of which 'it' is aware is all that

exists. Everything in the self created experience naturally demonstrates this to

be true, even though it isn't true. When the possibility of something more is

considered by mind, it's just a concept and can't be experienced until

awareness increases. This concept also threatens our security that we've worked

so

hard to establish, along with our identity of self. These are all powerful

barriers to realization.

 

The truth is that, while we consciously believe we want to awaken, we

unconsciously are terrified of it, and so we hold our denial in place. This

denial

is the thinest of veils that can keep awakening from occurring for many

lifetimes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* It is a 'negation' of 'wrong focus',

and then what always there, appears?

 

Yup.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: Thanks. It's fun and I appreciate your kindness. :)

> You're right that the words and concepts are a serious

> limitation. That's why it's necessary to look for the

> truth of it within your field of awareness rather than

> your mind.

 

* '... mind ...' Do you mean my 'thoughts'?

 

yup.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 'Thinking', I understand, but `perception'

and `experience', I don't understand.

.... Does it means that background of silent

awareness is the `totality' of one's `focus'?

 

 

Perception is a way of talking about the sensory data processing that

'occurs' in mind. This results in our experiences and is also heavily filtered

by

our experience. To me, they're all dream processes and so don't really

distinguish themselves in a meaningful way in the context of the dream. Limited

awareness, creation and perception are the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Yes, individualized consciousness is

the original dreamer, which them dreams

a separate dreamer within the dream? :)))

 

There's an Edgar Allen Poe quote I like:

" All you see and seem is but a dream within a dream "

 

Phil :)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2005 2:41:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> cptc@w... writes:

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > toombaru2004

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM

> > Re: The Enlightenment Question

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > > cptc@w... writes:

> > >

> > >

> > > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal

> cortex of

> > > the human brain.

> > >

> > > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new

> > > possibilities.............................save one..........the

> ability to

> > > see itself.

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What

>

> > > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that.

> > >

> > > Phil

> > >

> >

> > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity.

> >

> > The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom.

> >

> > Look for this king......when the body dies.

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > how can " you " be so certain,

> > of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm?

> >

> > Ana

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > **

> >

>

>

> Only the ego speaks of being everything.

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

>

>

> So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of everything

> and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's

> that working for ya?

>

> Phil

>

 

 

 

You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened

masters' that

coincide with your own misconceptions.

 

The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing.

 

The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its own

imagined vastness.

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 8:15:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,

nli10u writes:

 

> You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened

 

> masters' that

> coincide with your own misconceptions.

>

> The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing.

>

> The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its

own

> imagined vastness.

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> You do?

> Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project

> itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this.

Sorry

> bout that.

>

> Phil

 

Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists.

 

Now I understand your confusion.

 

 

toombaru

 

Double timed in quick time,

sidestepped in two steps..

confused to exclude,

ego there go, ergo I go.

 

:-0

 

 

 

Hehe. Yer gooood. :)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:06:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> cptc@w... writes:

>

> > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of

> everything

> > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's

> > that working for ya?

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

>

>

> You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened

> masters' that

> coincide with your own misconceptions.

>

> The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing.

>

> The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its own

> imagined vastness.

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> You do?

> Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project

> itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this.

Sorry

> bout that.

>

> Phil

 

Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists.

 

Now I understand your confusion.

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 8:45:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

nli10u writes:

 

> You selectively believe the words that flow only through the

'enlightened

 

> masters' that

> coincide with your own misconceptions.

>

> The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing.

>

> The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its

own

> imagined vastness.

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> You do?

> Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project

> itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this.

Sorry

> bout that.

>

> Phil

 

Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists.

 

Now I understand your confusion.

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

 

 

Who is it that understands this confusion, please?

 

Phil

 

 

Weeeeellll, that's a deep subject and ends in a bottomless echo called

toombaru...

 

Smiles,

Ana

 

 

 

 

 

Heheeee. I swear I can hear it! :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:01:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2005 5:47:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

>

> Werner, from my point of view I don't know if you are aware or only in

> my imagination. Your rational ideas will get me nowhere.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> What sort of awareness are you suggesting here?

>

> Phil

>

 

I know that I am aware, but I don't know if anyone else in the

" external " world is aware.

 

If George W. Bush is standing on the moon and starts waving his hands,

it will take approximately one second before I notice that here on

earth. Is then George W. Bush's " awareness " one second ahead of me, or

one second behind me in " time " ?

 

al.

 

 

 

Okay, that kind of thinkingness can really dig some deep holes. Hehe.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:07:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2005 6:02:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

>

> Yes, maybe intuition is a link between thinking based of past memories

> and novelty.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> What does " novelty " mean in this context?

>

> Phil

>

 

When we compare a thought with our existing memory, we can see if the

thought has some new information or not in it. If I suddenly remember

that I have to pay my bills, then that thought has no or very little

novelty. If I have a thought that makes me solve a problem I have been

thinking about for a while, then that thought can be said to bring

some new insight, some novelty.

 

al.

 

 

 

Oh, okay. Thanks.

I agree then.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:17:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2005 6:25:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

>

> My hope is that my body is " just " a 3D holographic projection. A very

> advanced projection, because in a hologram, every part contains some

> version of the whole. If true, it means that I can perhaps someday be

> able to alter this projection called the body into a younger body, or

> into something else, or into an older body too for that matter. A

> holographic projection cannot die, it is just pure " information " . :)

>

> al.

>

>

>

> Did God get lost in that equation?

>

> Phil

>

 

O no, God cannot be lost. :) God is the One Movie Producer, the

Unmoved Mover, the Central Sun, the One Awareness. What we are

experiencing now is God in action.

 

Look at the computer monitor in front of you. It exists now and only

now. The computer monitor has not been manufactured by people in some

factory. There are no people. :-) All " stuff " is Maya! The computer

monitor in front of you is " only " a part of the 3D holographic Kosmic

Movie called the physical universe.

 

As the little kid said in the Matrix movie: " There is no spoon "

 

The Matrix movie has not been produced and directed in the past, it is

produced NOW and only now in the " time " of zero seconds by the One

Movie Producer. And " The One Movie " is the physical universe. All of it.

 

al.

 

 

 

Whew! Thank God God isn't dead. :)~

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:23:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> cptc@w... writes:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:06:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > cptc@w... writes:

> >

> > > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of

> > everything

> > > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach.

> How's

> > > that working for ya?

> > >

> > > Phil

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened

>

> > masters' that

> > coincide with your own misconceptions.

> >

> > The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing.

> >

> > The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its

> own

> > imagined vastness.

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> >

> >

> > You do?

> > Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project

> > itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this.

> Sorry

> > bout that.

> >

> > Phil

>

> Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists.

>

> Now I understand your confusion.

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> Who is it that understands this confusion, please?

>

 

 

 

 

 

It is I.......... the Mother of Confusion......... that understands all

confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:21:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> asimpjoy@e... writes:

 

 

 

> > P: 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.

 

> * '... consciousness... focus(es) on it's

> own awareness ...' Instead of identifying

> with the dreamer in the dream???

 

> P: The dream is an outpicturing of the boundaries of

> consciousness. The dream is the result of that focus

> of limitation. Consciousness identifies self as 'it's'

> own apparent limited content. The dream that you perceive

> is the literal creation of the limited awareness of Self.

> If awareness expands to include it's entire content,

> there is no more dream of limitation.

 

* OK - got it. Well said, and makes sense! :)

 

> > P: 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.

 

> * So it is only a 'shift' in focus from the

> dream/dreamer to awareness, but what brings

> about the condition of being 'fed up'. Is it

> 'suffering', the lack of any kind of lasting

> fulfillment? What brings about the 'insight'

> for such a 'shift of focus' to occur???

 

> P: Yeah, it consists of realizations that are actually

> increases in awareness. Through the witnessing of the

> dream, awareness of the content of consciousness expands.

 

* Interesting. Yes it appears so.

 

> P: We all began with the belief that our desires could be

> fulfilled by seeking happiness and avoiding unhappiness.

> Eventually, the realization occurs that it doesn't work;

> that we create both poles of the duality and we always end

> up experiencing both poles.

 

* There is always the bad and the good,

the pleasure and the pain, as you cannot

have one without the other, while living

from a dualistic perspective?

 

> P: If life improves, we normalize to that and simply

> create another duality from there, and the beat goes

> on.

 

* This is the insatiable demand for 'the more'?

 

> P: Eventually, we turn our attention to the possibility

> of non-dualistic joy and stop trying to make happiness

> occur. Ironically, this realization alone brings a degree

> of peace and joy.

 

* Yes. That reminds me about you saying

something about having no control over

your experiences.

.... What do you mean by that, because it

seems I DO have SOME control, and you are

saying it is just an illusion? How does that work?

 

> P: This awareness doesn't come about by hearing somebody

> talk about it because it's not a concept. However, by

> focussing attention on the idea and releasing thoughts

> about it, and just 'looking' to see if it's true, a genuine

> realization might come about outside of the thinkingness

> of mind.

 

* Yes, but how is 'awareness' experienced

to be different than just the body/brain

perception of the physical organism.

 

> P: The same thing can be done with many other ideas. The

> possibility of surrendering all struggle and still being

> able to survive can be looked at.

 

* Yes, but ALL struggle? Don't you mean

all psychological struggle of thought as

desire/fear. This is a little ambiguous,

because I 'justify' the struggle and the

concern about the work that I am required

to do to earn a living. I think about it,

and I may worry about it, and there is a

stress and hyper-vigilance, etc.

.... It appears this is a factor that

prevents surrender, and then, of course, I

also see the reluctance to ego-death, and

so surrender does not come 'in total', but

in many other littler things it does.

 

> P: The idea " Who am I? " can be looked at in this way, and

> the realization might occur that you cannot be body or mind

> or ego or thoughts, because you are able to observe these

> things and you cannot be what you objectively observe.

 

* That makes sense, intellectually, and at

times perhaps there may be a glimpse, but on

the whole the identification with the body is

too 'strong', and the 'feeling, that I am the

body persists?

 

 

> > P: Nothing is actually done within the dream. Everything

> > 'occurs' within consciousness itself, but consciousness

> > is witnessing the dream.

 

> * In the 'relativity' of the dream it appears,

> to the dreamer that a lot of things are going

> on, but do you mean this 'shift of focus' only

> occurs in consciousness, and not to the dreamer?

> ... What is the 'dreamer'. Can it be aware, or

> that the exclusive function of 'consciousness',

> within the dream, because only awareness can be

> aware?

 

> P: Well, consciousness IS the dreamer, and even then, it's

> just an illusion of limited awareness of Self that 'occurs'

> within consciousness.

> Yes, only awareness can be aware. Consciousness arises from

> awareness and is not other than awareness, although it is

> not fully aware of Self. This unawareness of Self is what

> makes it possible to even create this dream of limitation.

 

* Yes, I heard you say that. It seems to be

true, and it make sense, but I cannot say I

fully realize it.

 

> > P: 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.

 

> * 'You', meaning the 'dreaming self', because

> it seems the character, which is this 'me' in

> the dream, is identified as the dream character,

> and it DOES appear to be affected while in the

> dream? 'Indirectly'???

 

> P: Sure. It's true of the consciousness 'Self' just as it

> is of the imagined human self. Referring to Self now:

> Awakening does actually come about through the dream that

> consciousness creates, but it doesn't come about in all

> the ways that we imagine it does. Since the dreamer

>(consciousness) creates the dream out of it's own limited

> awareness, the dream cannot contain anything of which

> consciousness is not aware, therefore no unknown truth

> can be found in the dream. The dream is the exploration

> of the boundaries of awareness, and as these boundaries

> are explored in the dream, new awareness of the content

> of consciousness can occur. This expansion of awareness

> of Self results in a slightly different dream that

> represents the new boundaries of awareness, which can

> then be explored.

 

* Interesting.

 

> P: So, the dream character can do nothing and doesn't even

> exist,

 

* Wait, I'm getting lost again!

.... The 'dream character' doesn't exist'???

 

> P: however, 'you' are the consciousness, exploring your own

> created dream, seeking to fulfill your desires, which is

> nothing more than seeking the wholeness of Self; your own

> awareness content.

 

* I am consciousness taking the form of

a human, which is really the 'objective'

awareness looking to expand itself back

to pure subjective awareness?

.... The wholeness of the Self is contained

in the very awareness content of conscious-

ness. Am I getting this right. I am looking

and saying it as it appears to me up to the

level of my understanding.

 

> P: There is, of course, no individual 'you' to be found

> in this wholeness.

 

* No, here, ONLY awareness is?

 

> > P: 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.

 

> * 'You', meaning 'consciousness' this time?

> ... So, only dream stuff will happen in the

> dream, and 'awareness' will 'happen' within

> 'consciousness'.., but does not it ALL happen

> within 'consciousness', except for the 'pure,

> subjective awareness', which has not been

> objectified? How does this work???

> ... And what IS the meaning of the dream?

 

> P: Yes, it all 'happens' within consciousness. The

> distinction is just conceptual, but the point is that

> the dream character never causes anything to occur,

> but is rather 'caused'.

 

* '... the dream character never causes

anything to occur ...'. Well, Doesn't it

manipulate 'dream elements' within the,

and including itself? What distinction is

only 'conceptual'.

 

> P: That which is experiencing the words on your monitor

> is the individualized aspect of consciousness that imagines

> itself to be a human. (It's another layer of illusion)

 

* Interesting. I see. So, consciousness

'imagines' via 'thought', that it is an

individualized human. So, this is what

you mean when you say the dream character

does not cause anything to occur, it is

still only consciousness doing this, from

its position of objectified awareness?

 

> P: The human itself is of no consequence.

 

* Well, that's easy to say and even

intellectually understand, but isn't

it also important to 'realize' it. I

may agree the human is of no consequence,

but I don't actually 'feel' that way,

and I am not able to live that way.

 

> P: What's 'listening' is consciousness and what's

> becoming aware is consciousness. If this is realized

> (within consciousness) then the human stops trying to

> do anything in the dream and the focus (again within

> consciousness) is turned on itself to notice it's own

> contents. This 'results' in new awareness of that

> content, which is awareness itself.

 

* Again, very well said. It makes sense.

.... The critical threshold whereby the shift

of focus will occur in its own 'time' then,

and, other than, that there is nothing that

can be done?

 

> P: We talk a lot about the human not existing, but this

> doesn't mean there is no existence. It's an attempt to

> remove the identification of yourself as a dream character

> and place it within your individualized aspect of

> consciousness.

 

* Yes, it appears so. It all goes

on simultaneously, but there is no

particular identification or any

attachment. It is 'consciousness'

evolving.

 

> P: From that identification, the dream changes and

> awareness can become accelerated. That aspect of

> consciousness is also not you, but the entire

> unrealized content of it is. This is awareness

> itself.

 

* Yes, it seems that it must lead

there - but we shall see. ;)

 

> > * The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function

> > of awareness. * ??? Please elaborate. ;)

 

> P: Well, when consciousness projects itself into it's

> own dream and identifies with the human, it perceives,

> and in it's perception, it creates duality and imagines

> that there are choices. There are no actual choices to

> be made within consciousness, because the dualities are

> entirely self created.

 

* How are dualities self-created? I have

to choose to do this task or that one in

determining how to manage my time and my

business obligations, for example.

.... Help me to understand the practicality

in this way of 'seeing/action' while living

in modern society.

 

> P: All that can seemingly occur is an expansion of

> awareness of Self. To avoid projecting choices into

> consciousness, I called this expansion " spontaneous

> choice " .

 

* OK - 'seeing/action'? First there

is surrender, and then spontaneity

from 'direct contact'? Yes, this is

natural and expansive.

.... The problem of choice seems to be

one of surrender and spontaneity? The

survival of 'the me' seems tenacious.

What is holding one? Why does ignorance

persist?

 

> > P: 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.

 

> * Interesting.., so, liberation ca not occur

> within the dream elements, because an 'illusion'

> cannot bring about 'happiness', and thought can

> not figure a way out?

> ... And all this must be seen by the awareness

> within consciousness, not by the 'manipulation'

> of dream elements?

 

 

> Zackly. :)

> That's how I see it.

 

> > P: 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.

 

> * Consciousness removes its focus from the

> dream to awareness, because the awareness

> within consciousness has seen the nature of

> the dream, and then there is an insight with

> regards to its 'limitation'?

 

> P: Yeah. The 'process' that 'occurs' is not the finding

> of Truth. This finding is not necessary because

> consciousness IS that Truth and merely needs to

> become aware of Self.

 

* It is a 'negation' of 'wrong focus',

and then what always there, appears?

 

> P: Therefore, the entire exploration is about removing that

> which is untruth from view, leaving what has always been

> present which can then be noticed. The irony is that the

> entire spiritual 'path' has nothing to do with seeking

> Truth, but only with removing untruth. This is how

> exploring illusion leads to awakening.

 

* Yes, it is a 'negation of the false'.

 

> > P: 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.

 

> * Consciousness has identified as the human,

> but awareness sees that it is not limited to

> to the human, so consciousness 'explores' the

> illusion as a human, and the awareness within

> consciousness, will 'shift its focus' from the

> the human, within the 'illusion', to the pure

> subjective awareness???

 

> P: It's an amazing adventure, isn't it? What we call

> life couldn't 'exist' without this exploration of

> ignorance. The truly amazing thing is that it occurs

> entirely on it's own. There's nothing running the show.

> It's humbling to even catch a glimpse of the wonder

> of it all.

 

* Indeed! :)

 

> > P: When consciousness focusses on it's own content,

 

> * Do you mean the content of 'awareness'?

 

> P: Yes.

 

> > P: 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.

 

> * Are you saying that the 'content of consciousness'

> is not also the illusion and the human, but only the

> awareness, and this shift of focus from the illusion

> to awareness IS the 'awakening'???

> ... I'm a little lost, because does not consciousness

> also contain the illusion of the dream and the human

> as the dreamer? What is the content of consciousness?

 

> P: The content of consciousness is awareness itself, since

> it arises from awareness, but to be conscious is different

> than to be aware. Subjective awareness cannot see itself,

> and so consciousness arises from awareness as the object.

> This allows for a seeming 'other' that can objectify Self

> (awareness). Since consciousness IS awareness, awareness

> can observe Self THROUGH consciousness.

 

* It feels just as good every time you say it! :)))

 

> P: This is only possible if consciousness does not seem

> to be aware of the totality of it's own content, otherwise,

> it could not seemingly distinguish itself from awareness

> and would lose it's ability to objectify awareness. It

> would then dissolve back into awareness and the dream

> would end.

 

* I really like hearing you say that. :)))

 

> > P: I hope that helps clarify my ramblings a little.

 

> * Thank you for you efforts, Phil. Much of

> what you say rings a bell of truth inside,

> but all the various meanings that are used

> by words, is a bit confusing.

> ... I appreciate you 'willingness' to walk

> through this with me. ;)

 

> P: Thanks. It's fun and I appreciate your kindness. :)

> You're right that the words and concepts are a serious

> limitation. That's why it's necessary to look for the

> truth of it within your field of awareness rather than

> your mind.

 

* '... mind ...' Do you mean my 'thoughts'?

 

> * BTW, when the word 'mind' is used does that

> refer to all phenomena, or do you mean mind,

> as thought and self?

> ... I am trying to understand the use of terms:

 

> P: Yeah, I've seen it used different ways. I use it to

> define an illusory set of thoughts, including ego and

> perception and thinkingness itself. Mind, then, ceases

> to 'exist' when the focus is no longer on perception/

> experience/ thinking.

 

* 'Thinking', I understand, but `perception'

and `experience', I don't understand.

.... Does it means that background of silent

awareness is the `totality' of one's `focus'?

 

 

> * First there is pure subjective awareness, and

> then awareness objectified as 'consciousness',

> (we don't know why this happens), and 'mind' is

> all the phenomena within consciousness.., apart

> from its innate awareness. The dreamer and the

> dream is the same as the human and the illusion?

> ... I hope that I am understanding what you are

> trying to convey?

 

> P: That's how I see it, although the dream is a creation

> of individualized consciousness and so we could say that

> this is the dreamer, although that individualization is

> also an illusion resulting from consciousness not being

> aware of it's own content.

 

* Yes, individualized consciousness is

the original dreamer, which them dreams

a separate dreamer within the dream? :)))

 

 

> Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote:

>

> Anders,

>

> You just produced excuses.

>

> " Ripples in consiousness " , how is that possible if consciousness

> doesn't exist ? Does the brains produce ripples and then tranports

> them into that part which makes them conscious ? What about if you

> write a book about how you discovered the " ripple's cortex " which

> will offer you another chance for a Nobel prize ?

>

> At least you no longer used that nonsense expression " impersonal

> consciousness " , which is already an improvement.

>

> Werner

 

 

Werner, from my point of view I don't know if you are aware or only in

my imagination. Your rational ideas will get me nowhere.

 

al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2005 5:06:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> cptc@w... writes:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:23:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > cptc@w... writes:

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:06:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > > cptc@w... writes:

> > >

> > > > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of

> > > everything

> > > > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach.

>

> > How's

> > > > that working for ya?

> > > >

> > > > Phil

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the

> 'enlightened

> >

> > > masters' that

> > > coincide with your own misconceptions.

> > >

> > > The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing.

> > >

> > > The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its

> > own

> > > imagined vastness.

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You do?

> > > Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project

>

> > > itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience

> this.

> > Sorry

> > > bout that.

> > >

> > > Phil

> >

> > Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists.

> >

> > Now I understand your confusion.

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> >

> >

> > Who is it that understands this confusion, please?

> It is I.......... the Mother of Confusion......... that understands all

> confusion.

>

>

>

>

>

> It does get a little silly after a while, huh?

> Mayhaps we can save a lot of wear on our typing fingers if we can all agree

> to some basics:

>

> A) No ego will ever experience enlightenment. It's just the way it is. Get

> over it.

 

 

 

ok

 

 

 

>

> B) Truth can be known only by being that Truth. All else is a shadow of

> Truth, and therefore untrue. Every written word is a lie and we like it that

way.

 

 

Actually 'truth' does not exist.

 

Can you think of a truth in nature?

 

 

>

> C) All expressions are ego expressions, since there really isn't the option

> of expressing from our left kidney.

 

 

 

ok

 

 

 

>

> Given these understandings, possibly, we can allow those mind/ego mechanisms

> who choose to write things,

 

 

Nope........what is written is written through.... not by...the sense of

separation.

 

 

 

 

to continue to do so without the need to

> continually remind them of these basics as if it's some sort of an Earth

shattering

> revelation. :)~

>

> Phil

>

 

 

 

Alas........even 'sages' have no choice.......

 

 

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2005 2:20:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> >

> > 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

> >

>

>

> That is interesting. However for myself, I must come to this

> " understanding " myself. I don't even know if it is possible for me.

> Eckhart Tolle talked about one's sense of self that is trapped and

> confined only to the body opens up to include also that which is

> " outside " the body.

>

> al.

>

>

>

>

>

> Yeah, that's true. Isn't this 'knowing' that we're talking about just

> intuition?

>

> In one context, the scientist who ponders the answer to a problem

for hours

> and then 'gives up', and relaxes the mind, and an " Aha! " moment occurs.

> Suddenly the answer is there, not as a series of thoughts but as a

bright flash of

> realization that had nothing to do with thinking, but resulted from a

> pinpoint focus of consciousness, without the thoughts. What happens

next is that the

> mind goes to work on it and translates it into a concept that can

be used in

> a practical way to solve his problem. Ego will invariable jump up

and take

> credit for figuring it out, but there was no figuring out.

>

> Aren't genuine psychics and seers just using this same intuition,

but more

> easily and clearly? If that's true, is it possible that one can

glimpse Truth

> with this focus of intuition on a source of knowing beyond the

thinkingness of

> mind? If that's true, is this different from awareness, and isn't

the source

> of this awareness, awareness itself?

>

> Phil

>

 

Yes, maybe intuition is a link between thinking based of past memories

and novelty.

 

al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:46:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

>

> Whew! Thank God God isn't dead. :)~

>

 

That's why Jesus said (or, rather, is saying now, because Jesus is

created now as a part of the One Movie): " I and the Father are one "

 

It is very fortunate that God is producing the movie. We can be

co-directors, but ultimately, it is God who materialize every single

quark in the universe with laser-sharp precision, moment by moment.

Every single particle is connected to all other particles in the

universe. It's a very, very advanced movie. So don't try to produce

the Movie all by yourself.

 

As in the example of the Matrix move. Isn't it true that the Wachowski

brothers directed this movie some years ago? Yes, but this is only

true from a limited perspective. The full truth is that the ENTIRE

universe INCLUDING the entire history record from the Big Bang to the

present moment comes into being INSTANTLY. So God, creates the entire

One Movie in zero " seconds " in the now, and that movie contains the

Wachowski brothers making the Matrix movie and the entire history

record of the universe.

 

al.

 

 

 

I can't say it how I see it, but what if I were to tell you that God creates

a whole universe just for you in every moment? Each of us has our very own

universe and these universes interact according to fields of consciousness,

and it all 'occurs' within a single consciousness. In this way, your experiences

are the perfection of your own individualized evolution of awareness,

regardless of what 'others' seem to be doing. How does that sound?

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 10:04:07 PM Pacific Standard Time,

cptc writes:

 

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

>

>

> -

> toombaru2004

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, October 30, 2005 7:05 PM

> Re: The Enlightenment Question

>

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 10/30/2005 2:41:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > cptc@w... writes:

> >

> > --- In Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...>

wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > toombaru2004

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM

> > > Re: The Enlightenment Question

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,

 

> > > > cptc@w... writes:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the

frontal

> > cortex of

> > > > the human brain.

> > > >

> > > > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness

infinite new

> > > > possibilities.............................save

one..........the

> > ability to

> > > > see itself.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > toombaru

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your

creation. What

> >

> > > > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that.

> > > >

> > > > Phil

> > > >

> > >

> > > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity.

> > >

> > > The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary

kingdom.

> > >

> > > Look for this king......when the body dies.

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > how can " you " be so certain,

> > > of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm?

> > >

> > > Ana

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > **

> > >

> >

> >

> > Only the ego speaks of being everything.

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of

everything

> > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach.

How's

> > that working for ya?

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

>

>

> You selectively believe the words that flow only through the

'enlightened masters' that

> coincide with your own misconceptions.

>

> The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing.

>

> The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its

own imagined

vastness.

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

> Comfortably numb?

>

>

>

**

>

 

 

 

Comfortably dead.

 

 

 

 

 

My condolences.

 

 

 

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...