Guest guest Report post Posted October 28, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 28, 2005 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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 28, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 - 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 * 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 29, 2005 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
