Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/29/2005 2:41:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > cptc@w... 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 That presupposes a distinct and separate 'one' who can become willing to look. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/29/2005 2:41:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > cptc@w... 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 > > > > > That presupposes a distinct and separate 'one' who can become willing to look. > > toombaru * It seems that Phil was saying that 'thought' cannot 'see', and that the 'looking' is not done by an 'entity'? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/29/2005 10:21:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > cptc@w... 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 * 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 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > 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 > 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/29/2005 10:21:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > cptc@w... 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. Are there separate waves on the ocean? 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? > > 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? 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? > > 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? 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? 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? > > 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? > > All that is required is the willingness to awaken. That presupposes a separation that can will its own unseparation. 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? > > 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 No. 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Phil: but I know there is a knowing beyond thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it. W: Yes, for example when you sense an unpleasant pressure in your bladder then you know its time to piss. Werner 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 > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Sunday, October 30, 2005 3:31 AM Re: Re: The Enlightenment Question * 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 What an amazing, brilliant detective this consciousness is, finally realizing awareness of awareness. Wow, Love, Ana 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 30, 2005 - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Sunday, October 30, 2005 3:52 AM Re: Re: The Enlightenment Question 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 actually after the lookie-see, the seeing looks and it is more and more gorgeous all the time, now about the one who starts looking, sheesh what a bag of bones, twisted sista and bros. Ana It might be scary to see myself staring back at me. Hehe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:06 AM Re: Re: The Enlightenment Question 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 look and see, and see who looks Ana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Phil: but I know there is a knowing beyond > thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it. > > W: Yes, for example when you sense an unpleasant pressure in your > bladder then you know its time to piss. > > Werner Actually, I think you have a strong point there Werner, that there is more than just the thinking mind. Eckhart Tolle talks about the sense of presence being in the entire body and even " outside " the body. This means that there is no longer only a " me " in the head being aware of a pressure in the bladder, but that this " me " is now fused with the bladder and everything else in the body as a single field of self. I imagine that the sense of " I " or self becomes distributed and integrated with the whole body and the whole world. Not as an idea in the head, but as an ACTUALITY. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Anders, When Niz was asked where he sensed the " I am " his answer was it is a feeling in the body. (Where else ?) All those speculators here on the list whose mind is filled to the brim with spirtual shit and day-dreams will feel offended about my pissing reply. The more now I feel pleased that just you as one of the top speculators here realizd the truth behind it, besides it wasn't a " strong " argument but rather simple common sense and not at all meant to offend. But for those loving and holy-holy members hovering arround in the heavens of their day-dreaming childish mind already common sense is an offense Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Phil: but I know there is a knowing beyond > > thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it. > > > > W: Yes, for example when you sense an unpleasant pressure in your > > bladder then you know its time to piss. > > > > Werner > > > Actually, I think you have a strong point there Werner, that there is > more than just the thinking mind. Eckhart Tolle talks about the sense > of presence being in the entire body and even " outside " the body. This > means that there is no longer only a " me " in the head being aware of a > pressure in the bladder, but that this " me " is now fused with the > bladder and everything else in the body as a single field of self. I > imagine that the sense of " I " or self becomes distributed and > integrated with the whole body and the whole world. Not as an idea in > the head, but as an ACTUALITY. > > al. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:09:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, anders_lindman writes: I don't know if the description " impersonal consciousness " has been used by Tolle. Every particle is connected to every other particle in existence. So when I scratch my ass, then every star in this galaxy and beyond is literary " affected " . al. Whoa! Then stop that! ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > * 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. This morning we turned the clocks back one hour. Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour earlier? 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. ......and there is nothing beyond the dream. (WWW). > > > 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 > The mind is chasing its own shadows. That's what's it is designed to do. " Keep asking those deep questions. sleep on - when you wake even you'll be gone! " Ikkyu Love to you in your struggles. (((((((((((((((((((((((((((Phil)))))))))))))))))))))))) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > * 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. > > > > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour. > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour earlier? > > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things. Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable. al. > > > > 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. > > > > .....and there is nothing beyond the dream. (WWW). > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > The mind is chasing its own shadows. > > That's what's it is designed to do. > > > > " Keep asking those deep questions. sleep on - when you wake even you'll be gone! " > > Ikkyu > > > > Love to you in your struggles. > > > > (((((((((((((((((((((((((((Phil)))))))))))))))))))))))) > > > > toombaru > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > * 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. > > > > > > > > > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour. > > > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour earlier? > > > > > > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are > connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is > affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter > time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces > and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things. > > Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable. > > al. > And don't be so sure that your thought are flawed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > * 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour. > > > > > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour > earlier? > > > > > > > > > > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are > > connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is > > affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter > > time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces > > and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things. > > > > Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable. > > > > al. > > > > And don't be so sure that your thought are flawed. > All thought is flawed. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Anders, The holographic universe is just an idea of Mr. Bohm and no reality. But watch out, next time I beat up my wife then pay attention if you feel the blows. Btw, " impersonal consciousness " is that a slogan of Mr. Tolle ? If yes then next time please kick ass him twice. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > * 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. > > > > > > > > > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour. > > > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour earlier? > > > > > > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are > connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is > affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter > time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces > and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things. > > Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable. > > al. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > .....and there is nothing beyond the dream. (WWW). > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > The mind is chasing its own shadows. > > > > That's what's it is designed to do. > > > > > > > > " Keep asking those deep questions. sleep on - when you wake even > you'll be gone! " > > > > Ikkyu > > > > > > > > Love to you in your struggles. > > > > > > > > (((((((((((((((((((((((((((Phil)))))))))))))))))))))))) > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:21:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, asimpjoy 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??? 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. > 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??? Yeah, it consists of realizations that are actually increases in awareness. Through the witnessing of the dream, awareness of the content of consciousness expands. 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. If life improves, we normalize to that and simply create another duality from there, and the beat goes on. 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. 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. 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. 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. > 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? 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. > 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? 'Indiredctly'??? 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. So, the dream character can do nothing and doesn't even exist, 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. There is, of course, no individual 'you' to be found in this wholeness. > 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? 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'. 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) The human itself is of no consequence. 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. 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. 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. > P: The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function of awareness. * ??? Please elaborate. 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. All that can seemingly occur is an expansion of awareness of Self. To avoid projecting choices into consciousness, I called this expansion " spontaneous choice " . > 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 occure 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'? 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. 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. > 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??? 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. > P: When consciousness focusses on it's own content, * Do you mean the content of 'awareness'? 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? 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. 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. > 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. 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. * 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: 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. * 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? 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. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour. > > > > > > > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour > > earlier? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are > > > connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is > > > affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter > > > time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces > > > and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things. > > > > > > Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable. > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > And don't be so sure that your thought are flawed. > > > > > > All thought is flawed. > > > > toombaru > Hehe. I have had the same idea. Maybe thought is only a sign of ignorance, noise in relation to unfolding perfection. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Anders, > > The holographic universe is just an idea of Mr. Bohm and no reality. > But watch out, next time I beat up my wife then pay attention if you > feel the blows. > > Btw, " impersonal consciousness " is that a slogan of Mr. Tolle ? If > yes then next time please kick ass him twice. > > Werner I don't know if the description " impersonal consciousness " has been used by Tolle. Every particle is connected to every other particle in existence. So when I scratch my ass, then every star in this galaxy and beyond is literary " affected " . al. > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > * 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour. > > > > > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour > earlier? > > > > > > > > > > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are > > connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is > > affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter > > time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces > > and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things. > > > > Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable. > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > .....and there is nothing beyond the dream. (WWW). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind is chasing its own shadows. > > > > > > That's what's it is designed to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > " Keep asking those deep questions. sleep on - when you wake even > > you'll be gone! " > > > > > > Ikkyu > > > > > > > > > > > > Love to you in your struggles. > > > > > > > > > > > > (((((((((((((((((((((((((((Phil)))))))))))))))))))))))) > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > * 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 asked that in a way that makes some sense? **************************** > 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: 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: 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: 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? 'Indiredctly'??? > 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: The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function of awareness. * ??? Please elaborate. > 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 occure 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? > 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: 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: When consciousness focusses on it's own content, * Do you mean the content of 'awareness'? > 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: 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. * 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: * 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? > Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour. > > > > > > > > > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour > > > earlier? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are > > > > connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is > > > > affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter > > > > time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces > > > > and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things. > > > > > > > > Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > And don't be so sure that your thought are flawed. > > > > > > > > > > > All thought is flawed. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Hehe. I have had the same idea. Maybe thought is only a sign of > ignorance, noise in relation to unfolding perfection. > > al. > 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
