Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > >You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What >you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. Haha... I again have to say with Werner (the warner): I wish you good luck becoming a tree (I mean a REAL tree). (!!!) Sorry, I am in that mood... maybe it is the Divali energy (happy Divali to everybody, BTW!!!)... or in fact some laugh gas leakage in the neighbourhood as Ana suspects (lalilo)... nevertheless sometimes its hard to stay serious in face of such serious discussions. But this does not mean that I want to devalue those thoughts in any way!!! Really not. It just occured to me that the funny side of it is even funnier. I am reminded on Rishis words: SILENCE IS HALLUCINATION! WORDS ARE ILLUSIONS!! BOTH ARE EGOES! Excellent! As I have said Lalilo Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 - toombaru2004 Nisargadatta Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM Re: The Enlightenment Question Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, > cptc@w... writes: > > > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal cortex of > the human brain. > > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new > possibilities.............................save one..........the ability to > see itself. > > > toombaru > > > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. > > Phil > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity. The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom. Look for this king......when the body dies. toombaru how can " you " be so certain, of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm? Ana ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > - > toombaru2004 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM > Re: The Enlightenment Question > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal cortex of > > the human brain. > > > > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new > > possibilities.............................save one..........the ability to > > see itself. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What > > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. > > > > Phil > > > > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity. > > The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom. > > Look for this king......when the body dies. > > > toombaru > > > > > how can " you " be so certain, > of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm? > > Ana > > ** > Only the ego speaks of being everything. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > Only the ego speaks of being everything. " Only " ??? Is there anything else except the ego that can speak? lolila Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > Only the ego speaks of being everything. > > " Only " ??? > Is there anything else except the ego that can speak? > > lolila > Stefan > Only a few African Grey parrots..........and KoKo the gorilla. :-) 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 , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > Only the ego speaks of being everything. > > > > " Only " ??? > > Is there anything else except the ego that can speak? > > > > lolila > > Stefan > > > > > > Only a few African Grey parrots..........and KoKo the gorilla. > > > :-) > ........but they aren't foolish enough to pretend that they are everything. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Hmm Toomb, The world is indeed one's own creation, and it is good that you stepped in to point at that there is no creator. The world is just a limited personal view, tinted with one's likes and dislikes, with one's fears and hopes. You are indeed the world, because this world is created and projected by your brain. But to deny that the world does exist, that a traffic light is just a dream I only can warn: Watch the trafic and watch out if any police is arround. Werner Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2004 > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM > > Re: The Enlightenment Question > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal cortex of > > > the human brain. > > > > > > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new > > > possibilities.............................save one..........the ability to > > > see itself. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What > > > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity. > > > > The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom. > > > > Look for this king......when the body dies. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > how can " you " be so certain, > > of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm? > > > > Ana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > Only the ego speaks of being everything. > > > > toombaru > 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: > >But to deny that the world doesn't exist, that a traffic light is >just a dream I only can warn: Watch the trafic and watch out if any >police is arround. haha Stefan BTW, Werner, before I forget, I usually receive your postings including your drafts. This means twice, sometimes even three or four times. Are you aware (!) that deleting them does not prevent them to be sent out via the mailinglist? Not that I mind, I love chaos. Just thought you should be informed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: >So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of >everything and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting >approach. How's that working for ya? Ha! He is maybe not trapped but he is trapping you... 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 6:47 PM Re: Re: The Enlightenment Question In a message dated 10/30/2005 2:41:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, cptc writes: Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > - > toombaru2004 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM > Re: The Enlightenment Question > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal cortex of > > the human brain. > > > > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new > > possibilities.............................save one..........the ability to > > see itself. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What > > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. > > > > Phil > > > > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity. > > The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom. > > Look for this king......when the body dies. > > > toombaru > > > > > how can " you " be so certain, > of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm? > > Ana LOL Dr. Phil I presume, eureka, I have found him at last!! LOL, chuckle, hehe and haha > > > > > > > > > ** > Only the ego speaks of being everything. toombaru So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of everything and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's that working for ya? Phil 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 5:33:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, asimpjoy writes: * There is always the bad and the good, the pleasure and the pain, as you cannot have one without the other, while living from a dualistic perspective? In the long term, there will always be a balance because you create the duality and place the fulcrum on which it's balanced. * Yes. That reminds me about you saying something about having no control over your experiences. .... What do you mean by that, because it seems I DO have SOME control, and you are saying it is just an illusion? How does that work? As a dream character, the human cannot control the dream, since it is itself dreamed. There is no " I " present anywhere within the dreamscape any more than there is in your nightly dreams. Consciousness will dream a dream of control or a dream of loss of control. This is an outpicturing of awareness rather than a choosing of dream content, and so even consciousness does not 'control' the dream events as such. > P: This awareness doesn't come about by hearing somebody > talk about it because it's not a concept. However, by > focussing attention on the idea and releasing thoughts > about it, and just 'looking' to see if it's true, a genuine > realization might come about outside of the thinkingness > of mind. * Yes, but how is 'awareness' experienced to be different than just the body/brain perception of the physical organism. The product of mentation is a conclusion, rationally derived by organizing memory components in a logical order. Awareness is initially experienced as a knowing that occurs all at once, as a 'flash of insight'. I'm sure you've experienced this, although you may not have noticed it. As mentioned, the mind immediately 'kicks in' and conceptualizes that insight, which requires a moment of time. Ego will then take credit for the realization and imagine that it resulted from the thinking process, while actually it occurred 'between' the thoughts and in spite of them. > P: The same thing can be done with many other ideas. The > possibility of surrendering all struggle and still being > able to survive can be looked at. * Yes, but ALL struggle? Don't you mean all psychological struggle of thought as desire/fear. This is a little ambiguous, because I 'justify' the struggle and the concern about the work that I am required to do to earn a living. I think about it, and I may worry about it, and there is a stress and hyper-vigilance, etc. .... It appears this is a factor that prevents surrender, and then, of course, I also see the reluctance to ego-death, and so surrender does not come 'in total', but in many other littler things it does. All struggle is psychological struggle. It has nothing to do with doingness. Doing can be done with or without struggle. Psychological struggle does not cause things to be done and in fact interferes with the efficiency of any doing process. This focus of consciousness also creates more events in the dream that seemingly need to be struggled with. There are many 'levels' of surrender. It ends when the dream ends. * That makes sense, intellectually, and at times perhaps there may be a glimpse, but on the whole the identification with the body is too 'strong', and the 'feeling, that I am the body persists? It persists here too because the senses keep reflecting that, but it can be weakened dramatically by looking at the truth of the matter. * I am consciousness taking the form of a human, which is really the 'objective' awareness looking to expand itself back to pure subjective awareness? .... The wholeness of the Self is contained in the very awareness content of conscious- ness. Am I getting this right. I am looking and saying it as it appears to me up to the level of my understanding. There ya go. Are you seeing it in your awareness or in your thoughts? > P: Yes, it all 'happens' within consciousness. The > distinction is just conceptual, but the point is that > the dream character never causes anything to occur, > but is rather 'caused'. * '... the dream character never causes anything to occur ...'. Well, Doesn't it manipulate 'dream elements' within the, and including itself? What distinction is only 'conceptual'. The conceptual distinction is that things 'occur' in the dreamscape and that the dream is 'occurring' in consciousness. Everything occurs within consciousness. Again, dream characters can't 'do' anything. They have no independent volition any more than a cartoon character in an animated film. * Interesting. I see. So, consciousness 'imagines' via 'thought', that it is an individualized human. So, this is what you mean when you say the dream character does not cause anything to occur, it is still only consciousness doing this, from its position of objectified awareness? Yes, although it should be mentioned that thought is a dream character thing only. Consciousness does not think. It has no mechanism by which to do this, no time in which to do it, and no need for it. Consciousness is simply aware of that which it is aware. The dream is the outpicturing of this awareness 'content'. > P: The human itself is of no consequence. * Well, that's easy to say and even intellectually understand, but isn't it also important to 'realize' it. I may agree the human is of no consequence, but I don't actually 'feel' that way, and I am not able to live that way. Yeah, I meant within the context of our concepts here. It plays no actual role in causing anything to occur. It's a little like a lunar rover that provides for perception/ experience/ memory/ thought processing. That's all. > P: What's 'listening' is consciousness and what's > becoming aware is consciousness. If this is realized > (within consciousness) then the human stops trying to > do anything in the dream and the focus (again within > consciousness) is turned on itself to notice it's own > contents. This 'results' in new awareness of that > content, which is awareness itself. * Again, very well said. It makes sense. .... The critical threshold whereby the shift of focus will occur in its own 'time' then, and, other than, that there is nothing that can be done? Positioned as consciousness, it is indeed possible to turn one's focus on the content of awareness and expand that awareness. It must be clear that it is not the human that is doing this, or all that will be found is the thought content of mind. However, it is not your human choice to do this, because the human has no choice. It is also not the choice of consciousness to do this or you would be able to do that, since you are that consciousness. So, what this means is that awareness must progress to the point where the expanded content begins to cause the focus to be removed from the illusion and turned on itself. This awareness will then be outpictured as a dream in which this is occurring. The paradox is that you, as consciousness, cause your own awareness of Self to occur, but you have no means by which to alter how that occurs. In this way, it can be said that the totality of awareness itself determines your evolution, and you're just along for the ride and might as well enjoy the scenery. Hehe. However, you may want to pay attention to your own dream. (Says the other dream character) * How are dualities self-created? I have to choose to do this task or that one in determining how to manage my time and my business obligations, for example. .... Help me to understand the practicality in this way of 'seeing/action' while living in modern society. Well, let's start with the larger picture first. The dream experience is a manifestation of limitation, and the experience of limitation brings with it a sense of lack which seeks wholeness. This sense is what drives the whole process of the expansion of awareness. It also results in a feeling of need. The mind examines this need and seeks ways of fulfilling it, which is what thinking is all about. In one way or another, thought is being used to fulfill a desire. In this process, it begins to identify and name all the dream objects so that it can determine what might fulfill these desires and what won't. This is the creation of duality. There's good/bad, safe/unsafe, beautiful/ugly, pleasure/pain, happy/unhappy, etc. There's nothing intrinsically dualistic about anything until we define it in opposite polarities according to how well it might fulfill our desires. Since the dreamscape is created by our focus of consciousness, and we necessarily define happy against the opposite perception of unhappy, we bring both into our perception. If we succeed in tipping the balance of duality in favor of the happy polarity, we find that this doesn't eliminate the desire because the desire originates in our original longing for wholeness rather than in the pleasures of the illusion, and so we move our balance point for the duality to our present circumstances and normalize to that experience. We then repeat the process by redefining what would be pleasurable and what would be unpleasureable and do it all over again,........ until we realize it isn't working. .... The problem of choice seems to be one of surrender and spontaneity? The survival of 'the me' seems tenacious. What is holding one? Why does ignorance persist? As far as consciousness knows, that of which 'it' is aware is all that exists. Everything in the self created experience naturally demonstrates this to be true, even though it isn't true. When the possibility of something more is considered by mind, it's just a concept and can't be experienced until awareness increases. This concept also threatens our security that we've worked so hard to establish, along with our identity of self. These are all powerful barriers to realization. The truth is that, while we consciously believe we want to awaken, we unconsciously are terrified of it, and so we hold our denial in place. This denial is the thinest of veils that can keep awakening from occurring for many lifetimes. * It is a 'negation' of 'wrong focus', and then what always there, appears? Yup. > P: Thanks. It's fun and I appreciate your kindness. > You're right that the words and concepts are a serious > limitation. That's why it's necessary to look for the > truth of it within your field of awareness rather than > your mind. * '... mind ...' Do you mean my 'thoughts'? yup. * 'Thinking', I understand, but `perception' and `experience', I don't understand. .... Does it means that background of silent awareness is the `totality' of one's `focus'? Perception is a way of talking about the sensory data processing that 'occurs' in mind. This results in our experiences and is also heavily filtered by our experience. To me, they're all dream processes and so don't really distinguish themselves in a meaningful way in the context of the dream. Limited awareness, creation and perception are the same. * Yes, individualized consciousness is the original dreamer, which them dreams a separate dreamer within the dream? )) There's an Edgar Allen Poe quote I like: " All you see and seem is but a dream within a dream " Phil 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 10/30/2005 2:41:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, > cptc@w... writes: > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2004 > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM > > Re: The Enlightenment Question > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal > cortex of > > > the human brain. > > > > > > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new > > > possibilities.............................save one..........the > ability to > > > see itself. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What > > > > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity. > > > > The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom. > > > > Look for this king......when the body dies. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > how can " you " be so certain, > > of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm? > > > > Ana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > Only the ego speaks of being everything. > > > > toombaru > > > > > > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of everything > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's > that working for ya? > > Phil > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened masters' that coincide with your own misconceptions. The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing. The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its own imagined vastness. toombaru 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 8:15:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, nli10u writes: > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened > masters' that > coincide with your own misconceptions. > > The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing. > > The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its own > imagined vastness. > > > toombaru > > > > You do? > Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project > itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this. Sorry > bout that. > > Phil Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists. Now I understand your confusion. toombaru Double timed in quick time, sidestepped in two steps.. confused to exclude, ego there go, ergo I go. :-0 Hehe. Yer gooood. 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 10/30/2005 4:06:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, > cptc@w... writes: > > > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of > everything > > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's > > that working for ya? > > > > Phil > > > > > > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened > masters' that > coincide with your own misconceptions. > > The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing. > > The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its own > imagined vastness. > > > toombaru > > > > You do? > Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project > itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this. Sorry > bout that. > > Phil Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists. Now I understand your confusion. toombaru 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 8:45:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, nli10u writes: > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened > masters' that > coincide with your own misconceptions. > > The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing. > > The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its own > imagined vastness. > > > toombaru > > > > You do? > Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project > itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this. Sorry > bout that. > > Phil Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists. Now I understand your confusion. toombaru Who is it that understands this confusion, please? Phil Weeeeellll, that's a deep subject and ends in a bottomless echo called toombaru... Smiles, Ana Heheeee. I swear I can hear it! 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 9:01:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, anders_lindman writes: Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 5:47:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, > anders_lindman writes: > > > Werner, from my point of view I don't know if you are aware or only in > my imagination. Your rational ideas will get me nowhere. > > al. > > > > What sort of awareness are you suggesting here? > > Phil > I know that I am aware, but I don't know if anyone else in the " external " world is aware. If George W. Bush is standing on the moon and starts waving his hands, it will take approximately one second before I notice that here on earth. Is then George W. Bush's " awareness " one second ahead of me, or one second behind me in " time " ? al. Okay, that kind of thinkingness can really dig some deep holes. Hehe. 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 9:07:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, anders_lindman writes: Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 6:02:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, > anders_lindman writes: > > > Yes, maybe intuition is a link between thinking based of past memories > and novelty. > > al. > > > > What does " novelty " mean in this context? > > Phil > When we compare a thought with our existing memory, we can see if the thought has some new information or not in it. If I suddenly remember that I have to pay my bills, then that thought has no or very little novelty. If I have a thought that makes me solve a problem I have been thinking about for a while, then that thought can be said to bring some new insight, some novelty. al. Oh, okay. Thanks. I agree then. Phil 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 9:17:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, anders_lindman writes: Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 6:25:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, > anders_lindman writes: > > > My hope is that my body is " just " a 3D holographic projection. A very > advanced projection, because in a hologram, every part contains some > version of the whole. If true, it means that I can perhaps someday be > able to alter this projection called the body into a younger body, or > into something else, or into an older body too for that matter. A > holographic projection cannot die, it is just pure " information " . > > al. > > > > Did God get lost in that equation? > > Phil > O no, God cannot be lost. God is the One Movie Producer, the Unmoved Mover, the Central Sun, the One Awareness. What we are experiencing now is God in action. Look at the computer monitor in front of you. It exists now and only now. The computer monitor has not been manufactured by people in some factory. There are no people. :-) All " stuff " is Maya! The computer monitor in front of you is " only " a part of the 3D holographic Kosmic Movie called the physical universe. As the little kid said in the Matrix movie: " There is no spoon " The Matrix movie has not been produced and directed in the past, it is produced NOW and only now in the " time " of zero seconds by the One Movie Producer. And " The One Movie " is the physical universe. All of it. al. Whew! Thank God God isn't dead. ~ 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 10/30/2005 4:23:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, > cptc@w... writes: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:06:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of > > everything > > > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. > How's > > > that working for ya? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened > > > masters' that > > coincide with your own misconceptions. > > > > The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing. > > > > The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its > own > > imagined vastness. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > You do? > > Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project > > itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this. > Sorry > > bout that. > > > > Phil > > Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists. > > Now I understand your confusion. > > > toombaru > > > > Who is it that understands this confusion, please? > It is I.......... the Mother of Confusion......... that understands all confusion. 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 10/30/2005 9:21:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, > asimpjoy@e... writes: > > P: Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the > > Truth as the bottom line, so to speak, but this is > > just what occurs within the dream. Consciousness > > already contains the Truth and all that's required > > is for consciousness to focus on it's own awareness. > * '... consciousness... focus(es) on it's > own awareness ...' Instead of identifying > with the dreamer in the dream??? > P: The dream is an outpicturing of the boundaries of > consciousness. The dream is the result of that focus > of limitation. Consciousness identifies self as 'it's' > own apparent limited content. The dream that you perceive > is the literal creation of the limited awareness of Self. > If awareness expands to include it's entire content, > there is no more dream of limitation. * OK - got it. Well said, and makes sense! > > P: When the dream character is fed up with the dream > > and surrenders and 'looks', consciousness turns it's > > focus on itself. The stuff going on in the dream is > > just the outpicturing of the focus of consciousness. > * So it is only a 'shift' in focus from the > dream/dreamer to awareness, but what brings > about the condition of being 'fed up'. Is it > 'suffering', the lack of any kind of lasting > fulfillment? What brings about the 'insight' > for such a 'shift of focus' to occur??? > P: Yeah, it consists of realizations that are actually > increases in awareness. Through the witnessing of the > dream, awareness of the content of consciousness expands. * Interesting. Yes it appears so. > P: We all began with the belief that our desires could be > fulfilled by seeking happiness and avoiding unhappiness. > Eventually, the realization occurs that it doesn't work; > that we create both poles of the duality and we always end > up experiencing both poles. * There is always the bad and the good, the pleasure and the pain, as you cannot have one without the other, while living from a dualistic perspective? > P: If life improves, we normalize to that and simply > create another duality from there, and the beat goes > on. * This is the insatiable demand for 'the more'? > P: Eventually, we turn our attention to the possibility > of non-dualistic joy and stop trying to make happiness > occur. Ironically, this realization alone brings a degree > of peace and joy. * Yes. That reminds me about you saying something about having no control over your experiences. .... What do you mean by that, because it seems I DO have SOME control, and you are saying it is just an illusion? How does that work? > P: This awareness doesn't come about by hearing somebody > talk about it because it's not a concept. However, by > focussing attention on the idea and releasing thoughts > about it, and just 'looking' to see if it's true, a genuine > realization might come about outside of the thinkingness > of mind. * Yes, but how is 'awareness' experienced to be different than just the body/brain perception of the physical organism. > P: The same thing can be done with many other ideas. The > possibility of surrendering all struggle and still being > able to survive can be looked at. * Yes, but ALL struggle? Don't you mean all psychological struggle of thought as desire/fear. This is a little ambiguous, because I 'justify' the struggle and the concern about the work that I am required to do to earn a living. I think about it, and I may worry about it, and there is a stress and hyper-vigilance, etc. .... It appears this is a factor that prevents surrender, and then, of course, I also see the reluctance to ego-death, and so surrender does not come 'in total', but in many other littler things it does. > P: The idea " Who am I? " can be looked at in this way, and > the realization might occur that you cannot be body or mind > or ego or thoughts, because you are able to observe these > things and you cannot be what you objectively observe. * That makes sense, intellectually, and at times perhaps there may be a glimpse, but on the whole the identification with the body is too 'strong', and the 'feeling, that I am the body persists? > > P: Nothing is actually done within the dream. Everything > > 'occurs' within consciousness itself, but consciousness > > is witnessing the dream. > * In the 'relativity' of the dream it appears, > to the dreamer that a lot of things are going > on, but do you mean this 'shift of focus' only > occurs in consciousness, and not to the dreamer? > ... What is the 'dreamer'. Can it be aware, or > that the exclusive function of 'consciousness', > within the dream, because only awareness can be > aware? > P: Well, consciousness IS the dreamer, and even then, it's > just an illusion of limited awareness of Self that 'occurs' > within consciousness. > Yes, only awareness can be aware. Consciousness arises from > awareness and is not other than awareness, although it is > not fully aware of Self. This unawareness of Self is what > makes it possible to even create this dream of limitation. * Yes, I heard you say that. It seems to be true, and it make sense, but I cannot say I fully realize it. > > P: Just as in your nightly dreams, nothing that seemingly > > occurs directly affects you, the dreamer, but the experience > > of the dream has affected you indirectly. > * 'You', meaning the 'dreaming self', because > it seems the character, which is this 'me' in > the dream, is identified as the dream character, > and it DOES appear to be affected while in the > dream? 'Indirectly'??? > P: Sure. It's true of the consciousness 'Self' just as it > is of the imagined human self. Referring to Self now: > Awakening does actually come about through the dream that > consciousness creates, but it doesn't come about in all > the ways that we imagine it does. Since the dreamer >(consciousness) creates the dream out of it's own limited > awareness, the dream cannot contain anything of which > consciousness is not aware, therefore no unknown truth > can be found in the dream. The dream is the exploration > of the boundaries of awareness, and as these boundaries > are explored in the dream, new awareness of the content > of consciousness can occur. This expansion of awareness > of Self results in a slightly different dream that > represents the new boundaries of awareness, which can > then be explored. * Interesting. > P: So, the dream character can do nothing and doesn't even > exist, * Wait, I'm getting lost again! .... The 'dream character' doesn't exist'??? > P: however, 'you' are the consciousness, exploring your own > created dream, seeking to fulfill your desires, which is > nothing more than seeking the wholeness of Self; your own > awareness content. * I am consciousness taking the form of a human, which is really the 'objective' awareness looking to expand itself back to pure subjective awareness? .... The wholeness of the Self is contained in the very awareness content of conscious- ness. Am I getting this right. I am looking and saying it as it appears to me up to the level of my understanding. > P: There is, of course, no individual 'you' to be found > in this wholeness. * No, here, ONLY awareness is? > > P: This doesn't mean that anything can be done from within > > the dream, but you are creating and perceiving it all. The > > dream is not meaningless. > * 'You', meaning 'consciousness' this time? > ... So, only dream stuff will happen in the > dream, and 'awareness' will 'happen' within > 'consciousness'.., but does not it ALL happen > within 'consciousness', except for the 'pure, > subjective awareness', which has not been > objectified? How does this work??? > ... And what IS the meaning of the dream? > P: Yes, it all 'happens' within consciousness. The > distinction is just conceptual, but the point is that > the dream character never causes anything to occur, > but is rather 'caused'. * '... the dream character never causes anything to occur ...'. Well, Doesn't it manipulate 'dream elements' within the, and including itself? What distinction is only 'conceptual'. > P: That which is experiencing the words on your monitor > is the individualized aspect of consciousness that imagines > itself to be a human. (It's another layer of illusion) * Interesting. I see. So, consciousness 'imagines' via 'thought', that it is an individualized human. So, this is what you mean when you say the dream character does not cause anything to occur, it is still only consciousness doing this, from its position of objectified awareness? > P: The human itself is of no consequence. * Well, that's easy to say and even intellectually understand, but isn't it also important to 'realize' it. I may agree the human is of no consequence, but I don't actually 'feel' that way, and I am not able to live that way. > P: What's 'listening' is consciousness and what's > becoming aware is consciousness. If this is realized > (within consciousness) then the human stops trying to > do anything in the dream and the focus (again within > consciousness) is turned on itself to notice it's own > contents. This 'results' in new awareness of that > content, which is awareness itself. * Again, very well said. It makes sense. .... The critical threshold whereby the shift of focus will occur in its own 'time' then, and, other than, that there is nothing that can be done? > P: We talk a lot about the human not existing, but this > doesn't mean there is no existence. It's an attempt to > remove the identification of yourself as a dream character > and place it within your individualized aspect of > consciousness. * Yes, it appears so. It all goes on simultaneously, but there is no particular identification or any attachment. It is 'consciousness' evolving. > P: From that identification, the dream changes and > awareness can become accelerated. That aspect of > consciousness is also not you, but the entire > unrealized content of it is. This is awareness > itself. * Yes, it seems that it must lead there - but we shall see. > > * The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function > > of awareness. * ??? Please elaborate. > P: Well, when consciousness projects itself into it's > own dream and identifies with the human, it perceives, > and in it's perception, it creates duality and imagines > that there are choices. There are no actual choices to > be made within consciousness, because the dualities are > entirely self created. * How are dualities self-created? I have to choose to do this task or that one in determining how to manage my time and my business obligations, for example. .... Help me to understand the practicality in this way of 'seeing/action' while living in modern society. > P: All that can seemingly occur is an expansion of > awareness of Self. To avoid projecting choices into > consciousness, I called this expansion " spontaneous > choice " . * OK - 'seeing/action'? First there is surrender, and then spontaneity from 'direct contact'? Yes, this is natural and expansive. .... The problem of choice seems to be one of surrender and spontaneity? The survival of 'the me' seems tenacious. What is holding one? Why does ignorance persist? > > P: From the perspective of the dream, when it is clear that > > happiness cannot be found in the illusion, and thinkingness > > cannot cause awakening to occur, all desire is abandoned > > because it's understood that desire cannot be fulfilled, > > seeking ends, struggle ends, surrender occurs. > * Interesting.., so, liberation ca not occur > within the dream elements, because an 'illusion' > cannot bring about 'happiness', and thought can > not figure a way out? > ... And all this must be seen by the awareness > within consciousness, not by the 'manipulation' > of dream elements? > Zackly. > That's how I see it. > > P: This is the outpicturing of a high level of awareness > > that has all but removed the focus of consciousness on the > > illusion. What remains is Truth. > * Consciousness removes its focus from the > dream to awareness, because the awareness > within consciousness has seen the nature of > the dream, and then there is an insight with > regards to its 'limitation'? > P: Yeah. The 'process' that 'occurs' is not the finding > of Truth. This finding is not necessary because > consciousness IS that Truth and merely needs to > become aware of Self. * It is a 'negation' of 'wrong focus', and then what always there, appears? > P: Therefore, the entire exploration is about removing that > which is untruth from view, leaving what has always been > present which can then be noticed. The irony is that the > entire spiritual 'path' has nothing to do with seeking > Truth, but only with removing untruth. This is how > exploring illusion leads to awakening. * Yes, it is a 'negation of the false'. > > P: I'm suggesting that all of this comes about through the > > exploration of the illusion. It is consciousness that is > > exploring, even though it identifies itself as a human. > * Consciousness has identified as the human, > but awareness sees that it is not limited to > to the human, so consciousness 'explores' the > illusion as a human, and the awareness within > consciousness, will 'shift its focus' from the > the human, within the 'illusion', to the pure > subjective awareness??? > P: It's an amazing adventure, isn't it? What we call > life couldn't 'exist' without this exploration of > ignorance. The truly amazing thing is that it occurs > entirely on it's own. There's nothing running the show. > It's humbling to even catch a glimpse of the wonder > of it all. * Indeed! > > P: When consciousness focusses on it's own content, > * Do you mean the content of 'awareness'? > P: Yes. > > P: awakening from the dream occurs, but that content > > reveals that there never was any separation from the > > totality of awareness, and so 'one' does not awaken to > > a sense of separate self. > * Are you saying that the 'content of consciousness' > is not also the illusion and the human, but only the > awareness, and this shift of focus from the illusion > to awareness IS the 'awakening'??? > ... I'm a little lost, because does not consciousness > also contain the illusion of the dream and the human > as the dreamer? What is the content of consciousness? > P: The content of consciousness is awareness itself, since > it arises from awareness, but to be conscious is different > than to be aware. Subjective awareness cannot see itself, > and so consciousness arises from awareness as the object. > This allows for a seeming 'other' that can objectify Self > (awareness). Since consciousness IS awareness, awareness > can observe Self THROUGH consciousness. * It feels just as good every time you say it! )) > P: This is only possible if consciousness does not seem > to be aware of the totality of it's own content, otherwise, > it could not seemingly distinguish itself from awareness > and would lose it's ability to objectify awareness. It > would then dissolve back into awareness and the dream > would end. * I really like hearing you say that. )) > > P: I hope that helps clarify my ramblings a little. > * Thank you for you efforts, Phil. Much of > what you say rings a bell of truth inside, > but all the various meanings that are used > by words, is a bit confusing. > ... I appreciate you 'willingness' to walk > through this with me. > P: Thanks. It's fun and I appreciate your kindness. > You're right that the words and concepts are a serious > limitation. That's why it's necessary to look for the > truth of it within your field of awareness rather than > your mind. * '... mind ...' Do you mean my 'thoughts'? > * BTW, when the word 'mind' is used does that > refer to all phenomena, or do you mean mind, > as thought and self? > ... I am trying to understand the use of terms: > P: Yeah, I've seen it used different ways. I use it to > define an illusory set of thoughts, including ego and > perception and thinkingness itself. Mind, then, ceases > to 'exist' when the focus is no longer on perception/ > experience/ thinking. * 'Thinking', I understand, but `perception' and `experience', I don't understand. .... Does it means that background of silent awareness is the `totality' of one's `focus'? > * First there is pure subjective awareness, and > then awareness objectified as 'consciousness', > (we don't know why this happens), and 'mind' is > all the phenomena within consciousness.., apart > from its innate awareness. The dreamer and the > dream is the same as the human and the illusion? > ... I hope that I am understanding what you are > trying to convey? > P: That's how I see it, although the dream is a creation > of individualized consciousness and so we could say that > this is the dreamer, although that individualization is > also an illusion resulting from consciousness not being > aware of it's own content. * Yes, individualized consciousness is the original dreamer, which them dreams a separate dreamer within the dream? )) > Phil 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, > > You just produced excuses. > > " Ripples in consiousness " , how is that possible if consciousness > doesn't exist ? Does the brains produce ripples and then tranports > them into that part which makes them conscious ? What about if you > write a book about how you discovered the " ripple's cortex " which > will offer you another chance for a Nobel prize ? > > At least you no longer used that nonsense expression " impersonal > consciousness " , which is already an improvement. > > Werner Werner, from my point of view I don't know if you are aware or only in my imagination. Your rational ideas will get me nowhere. al. 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 10/30/2005 5:06:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, > cptc@w... writes: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:23:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:06:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of > > > everything > > > > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. > > > How's > > > > that working for ya? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the > 'enlightened > > > > > masters' that > > > coincide with your own misconceptions. > > > > > > The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing. > > > > > > The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its > > own > > > imagined vastness. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project > > > > itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience > this. > > Sorry > > > bout that. > > > > > > Phil > > > > Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists. > > > > Now I understand your confusion. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Who is it that understands this confusion, please? > It is I.......... the Mother of Confusion......... that understands all > confusion. > > > > > > It does get a little silly after a while, huh? > Mayhaps we can save a lot of wear on our typing fingers if we can all agree > to some basics: > > A) No ego will ever experience enlightenment. It's just the way it is. Get > over it. ok > > B) Truth can be known only by being that Truth. All else is a shadow of > Truth, and therefore untrue. Every written word is a lie and we like it that way. Actually 'truth' does not exist. Can you think of a truth in nature? > > C) All expressions are ego expressions, since there really isn't the option > of expressing from our left kidney. ok > > Given these understandings, possibly, we can allow those mind/ego mechanisms > who choose to write things, Nope........what is written is written through.... not by...the sense of separation. to continue to do so without the need to > continually remind them of these basics as if it's some sort of an Earth shattering > revelation. ~ > > Phil > Alas........even 'sages' have no choice....... toombaru 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 10/30/2005 2:20:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, > anders_lindman writes: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/29/2005 11:46:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > anders_lindman writes: > > > > > > When the question " is thinking needed? " is put it is the mind itself > > that is questioning its own functioning. The answer is of course that > > the mind doesn't know. It doesn't know if there exists a higher level > > of functioning that transcends thought. But at least, when asking that > > question one has stepped out of the idea that thinking is the highest > > state possible. The truth may be that thinking is the highest state > > possible, and that makes the seeker only trying to find something that > > does not exist. On the other hand, the truth may be that thought CAN > > be transcended and therefore to be stuck on the level of thought will > > only create further suffering. > > > > al. > > > > > > > > It may, or may not, be helpful, but I know there is a knowing beyond > > thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it. > > > > Phil > > > > > That is interesting. However for myself, I must come to this > " understanding " myself. I don't even know if it is possible for me. > Eckhart Tolle talked about one's sense of self that is trapped and > confined only to the body opens up to include also that which is > " outside " the body. > > al. > > > > > > Yeah, that's true. Isn't this 'knowing' that we're talking about just > intuition? > > In one context, the scientist who ponders the answer to a problem for hours > and then 'gives up', and relaxes the mind, and an " Aha! " moment occurs. > Suddenly the answer is there, not as a series of thoughts but as a bright flash of > realization that had nothing to do with thinking, but resulted from a > pinpoint focus of consciousness, without the thoughts. What happens next is that the > mind goes to work on it and translates it into a concept that can be used in > a practical way to solve his problem. Ego will invariable jump up and take > credit for figuring it out, but there was no figuring out. > > Aren't genuine psychics and seers just using this same intuition, but more > easily and clearly? If that's true, is it possible that one can glimpse Truth > with this focus of intuition on a source of knowing beyond the thinkingness of > mind? If that's true, is this different from awareness, and isn't the source > of this awareness, awareness itself? > > Phil > Yes, maybe intuition is a link between thinking based of past memories and novelty. al. 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 9:46:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, anders_lindman writes: > > Whew! Thank God God isn't dead. ~ > That's why Jesus said (or, rather, is saying now, because Jesus is created now as a part of the One Movie): " I and the Father are one " It is very fortunate that God is producing the movie. We can be co-directors, but ultimately, it is God who materialize every single quark in the universe with laser-sharp precision, moment by moment. Every single particle is connected to all other particles in the universe. It's a very, very advanced movie. So don't try to produce the Movie all by yourself. As in the example of the Matrix move. Isn't it true that the Wachowski brothers directed this movie some years ago? Yes, but this is only true from a limited perspective. The full truth is that the ENTIRE universe INCLUDING the entire history record from the Big Bang to the present moment comes into being INSTANTLY. So God, creates the entire One Movie in zero " seconds " in the now, and that movie contains the Wachowski brothers making the Matrix movie and the entire history record of the universe. al. I can't say it how I see it, but what if I were to tell you that God creates a whole universe just for you in every moment? Each of us has our very own universe and these universes interact according to fields of consciousness, and it all 'occurs' within a single consciousness. In this way, your experiences are the perfection of your own individualized evolution of awareness, regardless of what 'others' seem to be doing. How does that sound? Phil 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 10:04:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, cptc writes: Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > - > toombaru2004 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 30, 2005 7:05 PM > Re: The Enlightenment Question > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 2:41:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > toombaru2004 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM > > > Re: The Enlightenment Question > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal > > cortex of > > > > the human brain. > > > > > > > > It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new > > > > possibilities.............................save one..........the > > ability to > > > > see itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What > > > > > > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity. > > > > > > The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom. > > > > > > Look for this king......when the body dies. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can " you " be so certain, > > > of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm? > > > > > > Ana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Only the ego speaks of being everything. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of everything > > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's > > that working for ya? > > > > Phil > > > > > > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened masters' that > coincide with your own misconceptions. > > The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing. > > The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its own imagined vastness. > > > toombaru > > > Comfortably numb? > > > ** > Comfortably dead. My condolences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
