Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Q: How is one to be free from the 'I'-sense? Nisargadatta: You must deal with the 'I'-sense if you want to be free of it. Watch it in operation and at peace, how it starts and when it ceases, what it wants and how it gets it, till you see clearly and understand fully. After all, all the Yogas, whatever their source and character, have only one aim: to save you from the calamity of separate existence, of being a meaningless dot in a vast and beautiful picture. You suffer because you have alienated yourself from reality and now you seek an escape from this alienation. You cannot escape from your own obsessions. You can only cease nursing them. It is because the `I am' is false that it wants to continue. Reality need not continue -- knowing itself indestructible, it is indifferent to the destruction of forms and expressions. To strengthen, and stabilise the 'I am' we do all sorts of things -- all in vain, for the 'I am' is being rebuilt from moment to moment. It is unceasing work and the only radical solution is to dissolve the separative sense of 'I am such-and-such person' once and for good. Being remains, but not self-being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " omkara " <fewtch wrote: > > Q: How is one to be free from the 'I'-sense? > > Nisargadatta: You must deal with the 'I'-sense if you want to be free of it. Watch it in operation and at peace, how it starts and when it ceases, what it wants and how it gets it, till you see clearly and understand fully. > > After all, all the Yogas, whatever their source and character, have only one aim: to save you from the calamity of separate existence, of being a meaningless dot in a vast and beautiful picture. > > You suffer because you have alienated yourself from reality and now you seek an escape from this alienation. You cannot escape from your own obsessions. You can only cease nursing them. > > It is because the `I am' is false that it wants to continue. Reality need not continue -- knowing itself indestructible, it is indifferent to the destruction of forms and expressions. To strengthen, and stabilise the 'I am' we do all sorts of things -- all in vain, for the 'I am' is being rebuilt from moment to moment. It is unceasing work and the only radical solution is to dissolve the separative sense of 'I am such-and-such person' once and for good. Being remains, but not self-being. > Omkara, Imagine whenever that separative will which is causing the sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. How often then will it arise again ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " omkara " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Q: How is one to be free from the 'I'-sense? > > > > Nisargadatta: You must deal with the 'I'-sense if you want to be free of it. Watch it in operation and at peace, how it starts and when it ceases, what it wants and how it gets it, till you see clearly and understand fully. > > > > After all, all the Yogas, whatever their source and character, have only one aim: to save you from the calamity of separate existence, of being a meaningless dot in a vast and beautiful picture. > > > > You suffer because you have alienated yourself from reality and now you seek an escape from this alienation. You cannot escape from your own obsessions. You can only cease nursing them. > > > > It is because the `I am' is false that it wants to continue. Reality need not continue -- knowing itself indestructible, it is indifferent to the destruction of forms and expressions. To strengthen, and stabilise the 'I am' we do all sorts of things -- all in vain, for the 'I am' is being rebuilt from moment to moment. It is unceasing work and the only radical solution is to dissolve the separative sense of 'I am such-and-such person' once and for good. Being remains, but not self-being. > > > > > Omkara, > > Imagine whenever that separative will which is causing the sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. > > How often then will it arise again ? > > Werner Werner - Imagine that continuity is considered as reality, and that the sense of self-continuity is the basis for viewing life and experience as continuing. Imagine that the pain resulting from attempted continuity is attributed to others who want to interfere with my continuity. How often then will investment in continuity arise again? How often will there be manipulations, deceit, and violence in the service of " my continuity " and " what I want to get and have " ? Imagine that the dissolution of continuity ends the imagined sense of reality. How often will one relax one's effort to continue, and thus dissolve? (Once is all that is necessary to understand the fiction of continuity.) Imagine one has no investment in believing in continuity. One now does not see, experience, or inhabit a continuously existing world. One now does not see, experience or relate to continuously existing beings, or self-senses, or things. One can operate in the apparently continuing world, without being continuous, and without regarding the world as continuous (one's being and world now not separate). - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " omkara " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Q: How is one to be free from the 'I'-sense? > > > > > > Nisargadatta: You must deal with the 'I'-sense if you want to be free of it. Watch it in operation and at peace, how it starts and when it ceases, what it wants and how it gets it, till you see clearly and understand fully. > > > > > > After all, all the Yogas, whatever their source and character, have only one aim: to save you from the calamity of separate existence, of being a meaningless dot in a vast and beautiful picture. > > > > > > You suffer because you have alienated yourself from reality and now you seek an escape from this alienation. You cannot escape from your own obsessions. You can only cease nursing them. > > > > > > It is because the `I am' is false that it wants to continue. Reality need not continue -- knowing itself indestructible, it is indifferent to the destruction of forms and expressions. To strengthen, and stabilise the 'I am' we do all sorts of things -- all in vain, for the 'I am' is being rebuilt from moment to moment. It is unceasing work and the only radical solution is to dissolve the separative sense of 'I am such-and-such person' once and for good. Being remains, but not self-being. > > > > > > > > > Omkara, > > > > Imagine whenever that separative will which is causing the sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. > > > > How often then will it arise again ? > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > Imagine that continuity is considered as reality, and that the sense of self-continuity is the basis for viewing life and experience as continuing. > > Imagine that the pain resulting from attempted continuity is attributed to others who want to interfere with my continuity. > > How often then will investment in continuity arise again? > > How often will there be manipulations, deceit, and violence in the service of " my continuity " and " what I want to get and have " ? > > Imagine that the dissolution of continuity ends the imagined sense of reality. > > How often will one relax one's effort to continue, and thus dissolve? > > (Once is all that is necessary to understand the fiction of continuity.) > > Imagine one has no investment in believing in continuity. > > One now does not see, experience, or inhabit a continuously existing world. One now does not see, experience or relate to continuously existing beings, or self-senses, or things. > > One can operate in the apparently continuing world, without being continuous, and without regarding the world as continuous (one's being and world now not separate). > > > > - D - > Sorry Dan, Since longer I stopped reading you, to cpmlicated, to intedllectual and there is missnig any simplicity. In short, I simply don't understand you. If you could write in a very simple way, that would be fine because besides not understanding you I believe you could have something to offer. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " omkara " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Q: How is one to be free from the 'I'-sense? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: You must deal with the 'I'-sense if you want to be free of it. Watch it in operation and at peace, how it starts and when it ceases, what it wants and how it gets it, till you see clearly and understand fully. > > > > > > > > After all, all the Yogas, whatever their source and character, have only one aim: to save you from the calamity of separate existence, of being a meaningless dot in a vast and beautiful picture. > > > > > > > > You suffer because you have alienated yourself from reality and now you seek an escape from this alienation. You cannot escape from your own obsessions. You can only cease nursing them. > > > > > > > > It is because the `I am' is false that it wants to continue. Reality need not continue -- knowing itself indestructible, it is indifferent to the destruction of forms and expressions. To strengthen, and stabilise the 'I am' we do all sorts of things -- all in vain, for the 'I am' is being rebuilt from moment to moment. It is unceasing work and the only radical solution is to dissolve the separative sense of 'I am such-and-such person' once and for good. Being remains, but not self-being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Omkara, > > > > > > Imagine whenever that separative will which is causing the sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. > > > > > > How often then will it arise again ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner - > > > > Imagine that continuity is considered as reality, and that the sense of self-continuity is the basis for viewing life and experience as continuing. > > > > Imagine that the pain resulting from attempted continuity is attributed to others who want to interfere with my continuity. > > > > How often then will investment in continuity arise again? > > > > How often will there be manipulations, deceit, and violence in the service of " my continuity " and " what I want to get and have " ? > > > > Imagine that the dissolution of continuity ends the imagined sense of reality. > > > > How often will one relax one's effort to continue, and thus dissolve? > > > > (Once is all that is necessary to understand the fiction of continuity.) > > > > Imagine one has no investment in believing in continuity. > > > > One now does not see, experience, or inhabit a continuously existing world. One now does not see, experience or relate to continuously existing beings, or self-senses, or things. > > > > One can operate in the apparently continuing world, without being continuous, and without regarding the world as continuous (one's being and world now not separate). > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > Sorry Dan, > > Since longer I stopped reading you, to cpmlicated, to intedllectual and there is missnig any simplicity. In short, I simply don't understand you. > > If you could write in a very simple way, that would be fine because besides not understanding you I believe you could have something to offer. > > Werner Werner - Okay, here's something simple then, related to what I wrote above: Discontinuity. Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense. The " I-sense " reappears in spite of pain associated with it. It reappears because of investment in continuity. The pain associated with its conflicts is attributed to what others are doing. Therefore, the pain isn't understood as the result of an attempt to continue as I. - Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:42 PM Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " omkara " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Q: How is one to be free from the 'I'-sense? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: You must deal with the 'I'-sense if you want to be > > > > free of it. Watch it in operation and at peace, how it starts and > > > > when it ceases, what it wants and how it gets it, till you see > > > > clearly and understand fully. > > > > > > > > After all, all the Yogas, whatever their source and character, have > > > > only one aim: to save you from the calamity of separate existence, > > > > of being a meaningless dot in a vast and beautiful picture. > > > > > > > > You suffer because you have alienated yourself from reality and now > > > > you seek an escape from this alienation. You cannot escape from your > > > > own obsessions. You can only cease nursing them. > > > > > > > > It is because the `I am' is false that it wants to continue. Reality > > > > need not continue -- knowing itself indestructible, it is > > > > indifferent to the destruction of forms and expressions. To > > > > strengthen, and stabilise the 'I am' we do all sorts of things -- > > > > all in vain, for the 'I am' is being rebuilt from moment to moment. > > > > It is unceasing work and the only radical solution is to dissolve > > > > the separative sense of 'I am such-and-such person' once and for > > > > good. Being remains, but not self-being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Omkara, > > > > > > Imagine whenever that separative will which is causing the sense of I > > > does arise it will cause immense pain. > > > > > > How often then will it arise again ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner - > > > > Imagine that continuity is considered as reality, and that the sense of > > self-continuity is the basis for viewing life and experience as > > continuing. > > > > Imagine that the pain resulting from attempted continuity is attributed > > to others who want to interfere with my continuity. > > > > How often then will investment in continuity arise again? > > > > How often will there be manipulations, deceit, and violence in the > > service of " my continuity " and " what I want to get and have " ? > > > > Imagine that the dissolution of continuity ends the imagined sense of > > reality. > > > > How often will one relax one's effort to continue, and thus dissolve? > > > > (Once is all that is necessary to understand the fiction of continuity.) > > > > Imagine one has no investment in believing in continuity. > > > > One now does not see, experience, or inhabit a continuously existing > > world. One now does not see, experience or relate to continuously > > existing beings, or self-senses, or things. > > > > One can operate in the apparently continuing world, without being > > continuous, and without regarding the world as continuous (one's being > > and world now not separate). > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > Sorry Dan, > > Since longer I stopped reading you, to cpmlicated, to intedllectual and > there is missnig any simplicity. In short, I simply don't understand you. > > If you could write in a very simple way, that would be fine because > besides not understanding you I believe you could have something to offer. > > Werner Werner - Okay, here's something simple then, related to what I wrote above: Discontinuity. Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense. The " I-sense " reappears in spite of pain associated with it. It reappears because of investment in continuity. The pain associated with its conflicts is attributed to what others are doing. Therefore, the pain isn't understood as the result of an attempt to continue as I. - Dan But he said " ...sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. " If that IS the case it is finished, whenever the I apears it will cause pain and disapear. What you are saying is that one can not be sure whether the pain is the presence of the center or exactly the oposite: any attempt to dislodge the sense of inner entity causes pain. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > Imagine that continuity is considered as reality, and that the sense of self-continuity is the basis for viewing life and experience as continuing. > > > > > > Imagine that the pain resulting from attempted continuity is attributed to others who want to interfere with my continuity. > > > > > > How often then will investment in continuity arise again? > > > > > > How often will there be manipulations, deceit, and violence in the service of " my continuity " and " what I want to get and have " ? > > > > > > Imagine that the dissolution of continuity ends the imagined sense of reality. > > > > > > How often will one relax one's effort to continue, and thus dissolve? > > > > > > (Once is all that is necessary to understand the fiction of continuity.) > > > > > > Imagine one has no investment in believing in continuity. > > > > > > One now does not see, experience, or inhabit a continuously existing world. One now does not see, experience or relate to continuously existing beings, or self-senses, or things. > > > > > > One can operate in the apparently continuing world, without being continuous, and without regarding the world as continuous (one's being and world now not separate). > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > Sorry Dan, > > > > Since longer I stopped reading you, to cpmlicated, to intedllectual and there is missnig any simplicity. In short, I simply don't understand you. > > > > If you could write in a very simple way, that would be fine because besides not understanding you I believe you could have something to offer. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > Okay, here's something simple then, related to what I wrote above: > > Discontinuity. > > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense. > > The " I-sense " reappears in spite of pain associated with it. It reappears because of investment in continuity. The pain associated with its conflicts is attributed to what others are doing. Therefore, the pain isn't understood as the result of an attempt to continue as I. > > - Dan > Hm, I still don't understand you. I think it are those authoritative stances your post is full of. Just take that singele rather authoritative sentence: " > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense " . 1) Investment ? Who is the investor and in what is he investing. I can't see any investment nor can I see any inverstor. 2) I-sense ? I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. 3) World-sense ? Same as above. I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. Alone that single sentence has to get discussed by length and I am not interested in longer discussions. Or to be more precise I feel no motivation to discuss somtething just for the sake of discussion. As long as you can't write in a very simple way, Dan, which needs to sacrifice your intellectual pride, we cannot meet. I am not interested to share that pride nor to support it. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:42 PM > Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " omkara " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Q: How is one to be free from the 'I'-sense? > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: You must deal with the 'I'-sense if you want to be > > > > > free of it. Watch it in operation and at peace, how it starts and > > > > > when it ceases, what it wants and how it gets it, till you see > > > > > clearly and understand fully. > > > > > > > > > > After all, all the Yogas, whatever their source and character, have > > > > > only one aim: to save you from the calamity of separate existence, > > > > > of being a meaningless dot in a vast and beautiful picture. > > > > > > > > > > You suffer because you have alienated yourself from reality and now > > > > > you seek an escape from this alienation. You cannot escape from your > > > > > own obsessions. You can only cease nursing them. > > > > > > > > > > It is because the `I am' is false that it wants to continue. Reality > > > > > need not continue -- knowing itself indestructible, it is > > > > > indifferent to the destruction of forms and expressions. To > > > > > strengthen, and stabilise the 'I am' we do all sorts of things -- > > > > > all in vain, for the 'I am' is being rebuilt from moment to moment. > > > > > It is unceasing work and the only radical solution is to dissolve > > > > > the separative sense of 'I am such-and-such person' once and for > > > > > good. Being remains, but not self-being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Omkara, > > > > > > > > Imagine whenever that separative will which is causing the sense of I > > > > does arise it will cause immense pain. > > > > > > > > How often then will it arise again ? > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > Imagine that continuity is considered as reality, and that the sense of > > > self-continuity is the basis for viewing life and experience as > > > continuing. > > > > > > Imagine that the pain resulting from attempted continuity is attributed > > > to others who want to interfere with my continuity. > > > > > > How often then will investment in continuity arise again? > > > > > > How often will there be manipulations, deceit, and violence in the > > > service of " my continuity " and " what I want to get and have " ? > > > > > > Imagine that the dissolution of continuity ends the imagined sense of > > > reality. > > > > > > How often will one relax one's effort to continue, and thus dissolve? > > > > > > (Once is all that is necessary to understand the fiction of continuity.) > > > > > > Imagine one has no investment in believing in continuity. > > > > > > One now does not see, experience, or inhabit a continuously existing > > > world. One now does not see, experience or relate to continuously > > > existing beings, or self-senses, or things. > > > > > > One can operate in the apparently continuing world, without being > > > continuous, and without regarding the world as continuous (one's being > > > and world now not separate). > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > Sorry Dan, > > > > Since longer I stopped reading you, to cpmlicated, to intedllectual and > > there is missnig any simplicity. In short, I simply don't understand you. > > > > If you could write in a very simple way, that would be fine because > > besides not understanding you I believe you could have something to offer. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > Okay, here's something simple then, related to what I wrote above: > > Discontinuity. > > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a > continuing world-sense. > > The " I-sense " reappears in spite of pain associated with it. It reappears > because of investment in continuity. The pain associated with its conflicts > is attributed to what others are doing. Therefore, the pain isn't understood > as the result of an attempt to continue as I. > > - Dan > > But he said " ...sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. " If that > IS the case it is finished, whenever the I apears it will cause pain and > disapear. > What you are saying is that one can not be sure whether the pain is the > presence of the center or exactly the oposite: any attempt to dislodge the > sense of inner entity causes pain. > -geo- Yes, I don't consider the case finished. First of all, pain resulting from something appearing doesn't automatically end the appearance. There are many, many examples. Take heartburn. Take ulcers. Take feelings of irritation. Secondly, as you suggest above, there are defenses of the I-sense related to the intent to maintain continuity. One of the major defenses is attributing the pain/anxiety that is me to what others are doing to me. Yes, I agree with what you suggest, that there is anxiety (which is painful) related to the potential for losing the sense of self-continuity. There is the intent to protect the assumption and belief of self-continuity. One aspect of this is the intense commitment people feel toward something bigger than themselves to which they can belong and give their lives: the religion, the spiritual message, the political group, the culture or ethnic group, the nation. Anxiety about the vulnerability of " my " continuity leads me to identify with something larger that is expected to continue after I die. - Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:08 PM Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:42 PM > Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " omkara " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Q: How is one to be free from the 'I'-sense? > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: You must deal with the 'I'-sense if you want to be > > > > > free of it. Watch it in operation and at peace, how it starts and > > > > > when it ceases, what it wants and how it gets it, till you see > > > > > clearly and understand fully. > > > > > > > > > > After all, all the Yogas, whatever their source and character, > > > > > have > > > > > only one aim: to save you from the calamity of separate existence, > > > > > of being a meaningless dot in a vast and beautiful picture. > > > > > > > > > > You suffer because you have alienated yourself from reality and > > > > > now > > > > > you seek an escape from this alienation. You cannot escape from > > > > > your > > > > > own obsessions. You can only cease nursing them. > > > > > > > > > > It is because the `I am' is false that it wants to continue. > > > > > Reality > > > > > need not continue -- knowing itself indestructible, it is > > > > > indifferent to the destruction of forms and expressions. To > > > > > strengthen, and stabilise the 'I am' we do all sorts of things -- > > > > > all in vain, for the 'I am' is being rebuilt from moment to > > > > > moment. > > > > > It is unceasing work and the only radical solution is to dissolve > > > > > the separative sense of 'I am such-and-such person' once and for > > > > > good. Being remains, but not self-being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Omkara, > > > > > > > > Imagine whenever that separative will which is causing the sense of > > > > I > > > > does arise it will cause immense pain. > > > > > > > > How often then will it arise again ? > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > Imagine that continuity is considered as reality, and that the sense > > > of > > > self-continuity is the basis for viewing life and experience as > > > continuing. > > > > > > Imagine that the pain resulting from attempted continuity is > > > attributed > > > to others who want to interfere with my continuity. > > > > > > How often then will investment in continuity arise again? > > > > > > How often will there be manipulations, deceit, and violence in the > > > service of " my continuity " and " what I want to get and have " ? > > > > > > Imagine that the dissolution of continuity ends the imagined sense of > > > reality. > > > > > > How often will one relax one's effort to continue, and thus dissolve? > > > > > > (Once is all that is necessary to understand the fiction of > > > continuity.) > > > > > > Imagine one has no investment in believing in continuity. > > > > > > One now does not see, experience, or inhabit a continuously existing > > > world. One now does not see, experience or relate to continuously > > > existing beings, or self-senses, or things. > > > > > > One can operate in the apparently continuing world, without being > > > continuous, and without regarding the world as continuous (one's being > > > and world now not separate). > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > Sorry Dan, > > > > Since longer I stopped reading you, to cpmlicated, to intedllectual and > > there is missnig any simplicity. In short, I simply don't understand > > you. > > > > If you could write in a very simple way, that would be fine because > > besides not understanding you I believe you could have something to > > offer. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > Okay, here's something simple then, related to what I wrote above: > > Discontinuity. > > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a > continuing world-sense. > > The " I-sense " reappears in spite of pain associated with it. It reappears > because of investment in continuity. The pain associated with its > conflicts > is attributed to what others are doing. Therefore, the pain isn't > understood > as the result of an attempt to continue as I. > > - Dan > > But he said " ...sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. " If that > IS the case it is finished, whenever the I apears it will cause pain and > disapear. > What you are saying is that one can not be sure whether the pain is the > presence of the center or exactly the oposite: any attempt to dislodge the > sense of inner entity causes pain. > -geo- Yes, I don't consider the case finished. First of all, pain resulting from something appearing doesn't automatically end the appearance. There are many, many examples. Take heartburn. Take ulcers. Take feelings of irritation. -d- AAHhh.. dan, sometimes you are so narrow minded that it is hard to believe. The ending og the inner sense of entity, the inner sense of observer, is the ending of time, of dimensionality, of the known, and can not be compared to heartburn and ulcers. The ending of the sense of entity is NOT one among many " things " . The ending of the sense of continuity is not the ending of one among several events either. Unless you feel it is....:>) -geo- Secondly, as you suggest above, there are defenses of the I-sense related to the intent to maintain continuity. One of the major defenses is attributing the pain/anxiety that is me to what others are doing to me. -d- The defenses ARE the sense of self, ARE the sense of continuity. -geo- Yes, I agree with what you suggest, that there is anxiety (which is painful) related to the potential for losing the sense of self-continuity. There is the intent to protect the assumption and belief of self-continuity. One aspect of this is the intense commitment people feel toward something bigger than themselves to which they can belong and give their lives: the religion, the spiritual message, the political group, the culture or ethnic group, the nation. Anxiety about the vulnerability of " my " continuity leads me to identify with something larger that is expected to continue after I die. - Dan Yes, the whole of our society to almost the tiniest detail is constructed (being ongoingly constructed) to preserve the sense of continuity. The ending of this sense, the perceiving this world as a flash that came and is about to go without leaving any trace is significant. The timebound-continuity " side by side " with that to which continuity is foreign. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Imagine that continuity is considered as reality, and that the sense of self-continuity is the basis for viewing life and experience as continuing. > > > > > > > > Imagine that the pain resulting from attempted continuity is attributed to others who want to interfere with my continuity. > > > > > > > > How often then will investment in continuity arise again? > > > > > > > > How often will there be manipulations, deceit, and violence in the service of " my continuity " and " what I want to get and have " ? > > > > > > > > Imagine that the dissolution of continuity ends the imagined sense of reality. > > > > > > > > How often will one relax one's effort to continue, and thus dissolve? > > > > > > > > (Once is all that is necessary to understand the fiction of continuity.) > > > > > > > > Imagine one has no investment in believing in continuity. > > > > > > > > One now does not see, experience, or inhabit a continuously existing world. One now does not see, experience or relate to continuously existing beings, or self-senses, or things. > > > > > > > > One can operate in the apparently continuing world, without being continuous, and without regarding the world as continuous (one's being and world now not separate). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Dan, > > > > > > Since longer I stopped reading you, to cpmlicated, to intedllectual and there is missnig any simplicity. In short, I simply don't understand you. > > > > > > If you could write in a very simple way, that would be fine because besides not understanding you I believe you could have something to offer. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner - > > > > Okay, here's something simple then, related to what I wrote above: > > > > Discontinuity. > > > > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense. > > > > The " I-sense " reappears in spite of pain associated with it. It reappears because of investment in continuity. The pain associated with its conflicts is attributed to what others are doing. Therefore, the pain isn't understood as the result of an attempt to continue as I. > > > > - Dan > > > > > Hm, I still don't understand you. I think it are those authoritative stances your post is full of. Just take that singele rather authoritative sentence: > " > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense " . > > 1) Investment ? Who is the investor and in what is he investing. I can't see any investment nor can I see any inverstor. > 2) I-sense ? I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > 3) World-sense ? Same as above. I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > Alone that single sentence has to get discussed by length and I am not interested in longer discussions. Or to be more precise I feel no motivation to discuss somtething just for the sake of discussion. > > As long as you can't write in a very simple way, Dan, which needs to sacrifice your intellectual pride, we cannot meet. I am not interested to share that pride nor to support it. > > Werner Werner - As you said, you don't seem able to understand what I'm saying, or is it that you're not wanting to? Whichever it is, we don't seem to be communicating well. I can tell you that I speak sincerely, but as you characterize my words as too intellectual and prideful for " you " , it appears that your characterizations of a " me " on " my side " of the communication lead us to an impasse. This strikes me as somewhat ironic given what you said about the sense of I causing pain. It appears that you believe that the sense of I you detect out there, in someone else, is what is causing the impasse for you. I notice that you say above: > 2) I-sense ? I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. Yet, in the letter you previously wrote and to which I responded, you wrote: > Imagine whenever that separative will which is causing the sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. > How often then will it arise again ? Clearly, you had some idea of the I-sense, because you wrote that separative will is causing the sense of I. I'm not sure how to communicate with someone who says something, to which I respond directly using the same term, who then claims not to know the term. Probably, there is nowhere for this communication to proceed, and that's simply how it is. You raise many questions, of an intellectual nature, to almost every sentence I write, then say you don't want to discuss at length. This also strikes me as somewhat ironic, and certainly not simple. If you want simplicity, you could consider keeping things simple. Just a thought. I agree with you that we aren't communicating. And I'm fine to leave it there, unless at some point you do want to understand and communicate, and feel able to do so, in which case I will do my best to reciprocate if possible. - Dan -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > Imagine that continuity is considered as reality, and that the sense of self-continuity is the basis for viewing life and experience as continuing. > > > > > > > > > > Imagine that the pain resulting from attempted continuity is attributed to others who want to interfere with my continuity. > > > > > > > > > > How often then will investment in continuity arise again? > > > > > > > > > > How often will there be manipulations, deceit, and violence in the service of " my continuity " and " what I want to get and have " ? > > > > > > > > > > Imagine that the dissolution of continuity ends the imagined sense of reality. > > > > > > > > > > How often will one relax one's effort to continue, and thus dissolve? > > > > > > > > > > (Once is all that is necessary to understand the fiction of continuity.) > > > > > > > > > > Imagine one has no investment in believing in continuity. > > > > > > > > > > One now does not see, experience, or inhabit a continuously existing world. One now does not see, experience or relate to continuously existing beings, or self-senses, or things. > > > > > > > > > > One can operate in the apparently continuing world, without being continuous, and without regarding the world as continuous (one's being and world now not separate). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Dan, > > > > > > > > Since longer I stopped reading you, to cpmlicated, to intedllectual and there is missnig any simplicity. In short, I simply don't understand you. > > > > > > > > If you could write in a very simple way, that would be fine because besides not understanding you I believe you could have something to offer. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > Okay, here's something simple then, related to what I wrote above: > > > > > > Discontinuity. > > > > > > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense. > > > > > > The " I-sense " reappears in spite of pain associated with it. It reappears because of investment in continuity. The pain associated with its conflicts is attributed to what others are doing. Therefore, the pain isn't understood as the result of an attempt to continue as I. > > > > > > - Dan > > > > > > > > > Hm, I still don't understand you. I think it are those authoritative stances your post is full of. Just take that singele rather authoritative sentence: > > > " > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense " . > > > > 1) Investment ? Who is the investor and in what is he investing. I can't see any investment nor can I see any inverstor. > > > 2) I-sense ? I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > > > 3) World-sense ? Same as above. I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > > > Alone that single sentence has to get discussed by length and I am not interested in longer discussions. Or to be more precise I feel no motivation to discuss somtething just for the sake of discussion. > > > > As long as you can't write in a very simple way, Dan, which needs to sacrifice your intellectual pride, we cannot meet. I am not interested to share that pride nor to support it. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > As you said, you don't seem able to understand what I'm saying, or > is it that you're not wanting to? Whichever it is, we don't seem > to be communicating well. As usual, swap the " you's " and " me's " :-p. Makes more sense then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > But he said " ...sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. " If that > > IS the case it is finished, whenever the I apears it will cause pain and > > disapear. > > What you are saying is that one can not be sure whether the pain is the > > presence of the center or exactly the oposite: any attempt to dislodge the > > sense of inner entity causes pain. > > -geo- > > Yes, I don't consider the case finished. > > First of all, pain resulting from something appearing doesn't automatically > end the appearance. There are many, many examples. Take heartburn. Take > ulcers. Take feelings of irritation. > -d- > > AAHhh.. dan, sometimes you are so narrow minded that it is hard to believe. D: You have trouble believing the projection you make of a narrow-minded Dan out there, apart from you, to whom you are responding? Then, why make it? > The ending og the inner sense of entity, the inner sense of observer, is the > ending of time, of dimensionality, of the known, and can not be compared to > heartburn and ulcers. D: On the contrary, ulcers although viral, have an aspect related to emotional tension, and tension is related to an I-sense, or " inner observer " as you like to call it. I also mentioned " feelings of irritation " which clearly are related to your friend " the inner observer. " My examples were to take you from the more simple, physical manifestation, such as heartburn, to the more emotional and reactive, such as irritation. The point being that pain doesn't make it stop. One could look at being harmed by violence. People are harmed by violence, yet repeat the behaviors. Pain does not make it stop. G: The ending of the sense of entity is NOT one among > many " things " . The ending of the sense of continuity is not the ending of > one among several events either. Unless you feel it is....:>) D: No, I don't feel that it is. I give examples to suggest that pain won't stop the appearance of the fragmented self-entity, as you call it. These examples are offered in a metaphorical sense, so let's not get hung up on the examples. What I am suggesting is that the so-called I-center will not stop appearing because of pain involved. Regarding irritation, it usually is irritation directed to " those out there and what they are doing wrong " -- have you noticed? It is reaction to " those entities out there " that show the " inner self-entity " .... and that is what it is ... a set of memories about responding to things and beings " outside " ... > Secondly, as you suggest above, there are defenses of the I-sense related to > the intent to maintain continuity. One of the major defenses is attributing > the pain/anxiety that is me to what others are doing to me. > -d- > > The defenses ARE the sense of self, ARE the sense of continuity. Yes, the defense and what is defended are not-two. Also, what is defended against is not-two. The defense is defending against the defense, as it is projected. > Yes, the whole of our society to almost the tiniest detail is constructed > (being ongoingly constructed) to preserve the sense of continuity. The > ending of this sense, the perceiving this world as a flash that came and is > about to go without leaving any trace is significant. The > timebound-continuity " side by side " with that to which continuity is > foreign. I'm not sure what you mean by " side by side. " Perhaps you mean that one can operate in the world, but not be of the world. One interacts in a mode that assumes continuity, that involves memory and conventions. Yet one's being/awareness is not assuming continuity. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:03 PM Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > But he said " ...sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. " If > > that > > IS the case it is finished, whenever the I apears it will cause pain and > > disapear. > > What you are saying is that one can not be sure whether the pain is the > > presence of the center or exactly the oposite: any attempt to dislodge > > the > > sense of inner entity causes pain. > > -geo- > > Yes, I don't consider the case finished. > > First of all, pain resulting from something appearing doesn't > automatically > end the appearance. There are many, many examples. Take heartburn. Take > ulcers. Take feelings of irritation. > -d- > > AAHhh.. dan, sometimes you are so narrow minded that it is hard to > believe. D: You have trouble believing the projection you make of a narrow-minded Dan out there, apart from you, to whom you are responding? Then, why make it? > The ending og the inner sense of entity, the inner sense of observer, is > the > ending of time, of dimensionality, of the known, and can not be compared > to > heartburn and ulcers. D: On the contrary, ulcers although viral, have an aspect related to emotional tension, and tension is related to an I-sense, or " inner observer " as you like to call it. I also mentioned " feelings of irritation " which clearly are related to your friend " the inner observer. " My examples were to take you from the more simple, physical manifestation, such as heartburn, to the more emotional and reactive, such as irritation. The point being that pain doesn't make it stop. One could look at being harmed by violence. People are harmed by violence, yet repeat the behaviors. Pain does not make it stop. G: The ending of the sense of entity is NOT one among > many " things " . The ending of the sense of continuity is not the ending of > one among several events either. Unless you feel it is....:>) D: No, I don't feel that it is. I give examples to suggest that pain won't stop the appearance of the fragmented self-entity, as you call it. These examples are offered in a metaphorical sense, so let's not get hung up on the examples. What I am suggesting is that the so-called I-center will not stop appearing because of pain involved. Regarding irritation, it usually is irritation directed to " those out there and what they are doing wrong " -- have you noticed? It is reaction to " those entities out there " that show the " inner self-entity " ... and that is what it is ... a set of memories about responding to things and beings " outside " ... > Secondly, as you suggest above, there are defenses of the I-sense related > to > the intent to maintain continuity. One of the major defenses is > attributing > the pain/anxiety that is me to what others are doing to me. > -d- > > The defenses ARE the sense of self, ARE the sense of continuity. Yes, the defense and what is defended are not-two. Also, what is defended against is not-two. The defense is defending against the defense, as it is projected. > Yes, the whole of our society to almost the tiniest detail is constructed > (being ongoingly constructed) to preserve the sense of continuity. The > ending of this sense, the perceiving this world as a flash that came and > is > about to go without leaving any trace is significant. The > timebound-continuity " side by side " with that to which continuity is > foreign. I'm not sure what you mean by " side by side. " Perhaps you mean that one can operate in the world, but not be of the world. One interacts in a mode that assumes continuity, that involves memory and conventions. Yet one's being/awareness is not assuming continuity. - D - Yes. Timebound and timless, limited and unlimited. No word will work to describe/point to this " kind of relation " . The world is being lived, space, time by the clock, things, objects...but as the timeless is present, the unbounded is present, the unknown is present....there is a sense of transcedence. The one " thing " that is NOT present is the sense of separateness. That is impossible.....unless one practices being separate from the universe three times a day eating vegetables. :-() -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Yes. Timebound and timless, limited and unlimited. No word will work to > describe/point to this " kind of relation " . > The world is being lived, space, time by the clock, things, objects...but as > the timeless is present, the unbounded is present, the unknown is > present....there is a sense of transcedence. The one " thing " that is NOT > present is the sense of separateness. That is impossible.....unless one > practices being separate from the universe three times a day eating > vegetables. :-() > -geo- Ok, Geo... yer bad, yer bad... (meaning 'good') ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:26 PM Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Yes. Timebound and timless, limited and unlimited. No word will work to > describe/point to this " kind of relation " . > The world is being lived, space, time by the clock, things, objects...but > as > the timeless is present, the unbounded is present, the unknown is > present....there is a sense of transcedence. The one " thing " that is NOT > present is the sense of separateness. That is impossible.....unless one > practices being separate from the universe three times a day eating > vegetables. :-() > -geo- Ok, Geo... yer bad, yer bad... (meaning 'good') ;-). -t- Thanks....can I join the club now? -egg- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Ok, Geo... yer bad, yer bad... (meaning 'good') ;-). > -t- > > Thanks....can I join the club now? > -egg- As far as I know, ya never left it... so certainly :-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Ok, Geo... yer bad, yer bad... (meaning 'good') ;-). > > -t- > > > > Thanks....can I join the club now? > > -egg- > > As far as I know, ya never left it... so certainly :-). P.S. can we joing Geo's club? Must we be held 'out there', somewhere far away? The universe is knocking on the door. Won't Geo let it in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:47 PM Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Ok, Geo... yer bad, yer bad... (meaning 'good') ;-). > > -t- > > > > Thanks....can I join the club now? > > -egg- > > As far as I know, ya never left it... so certainly :-). P.S. can we joing Geo's club? Must we be held 'out there', somewhere far away? The universe is knocking on the door. Won't Geo let it in? -t- My home is your home....come in. You are wellcome!! Dont even have to take your shoes off....or something like that. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:05 PM Re: Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:47 PM Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Ok, Geo... yer bad, yer bad... (meaning 'good') ;-). > > -t- > > > > Thanks....can I join the club now? > > -egg- > > As far as I know, ya never left it... so certainly :-). P.S. can we joing Geo's club? Must we be held 'out there', somewhere far away? The universe is knocking on the door. Won't Geo let it in? -t- My home is your home....come in. You are wellcome!! Dont even have to take your shoes off....or something like that. PS - Forgot to tell...if you dont find anybody here its because you did not look well :>() -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > Yes. Timebound and timless, limited and unlimited. No word will work to > describe/point to this " kind of relation " . > The world is being lived, space, time by the clock, things, objects...but as > the timeless is present, the unbounded is present, the unknown is > present....there is a sense of transcedence. The one " thing " that is NOT > present is the sense of separateness. That is impossible.....unless one > practices being separate from the universe three times a day eating > vegetables. :-() > -geo- Yes, there is no actual division anywhere. The dream-experience of a life unfolding over time, is not divided, is not volitioned - even as it unfolds with all its myriads of choices. Although it seems to involve time, its actuality is timeless. So, the transcendence of time is right there as time unfolds, seemingly, through the dream-experience. There is no need to get rid of anything or make anything different. Its beginning and end are the same dimensionless point. All points are one point, all dreams are included in each, all beings in each. Hence " me " and " you " can be applied in conversation and through dream actions - yet no " me " or " you " is ever the case, anywhere. Even the dream that attempts to revolve around an imagined I-center, arises nonvolitionally and returns to the same non-point. It never has its own center, although the appearance of attempting to have a center unfolded nonvolitionally through that dream-experience. Nothing is exempt from nondivision - nothing is left out or excluded. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Yes. Timebound and timless, limited and unlimited. No word will work to > > describe/point to this " kind of relation " . > > The world is being lived, space, time by the clock, things, objects...but as > > the timeless is present, the unbounded is present, the unknown is > > present....there is a sense of transcedence. The one " thing " that is NOT > > present is the sense of separateness. That is impossible.....unless one > > practices being separate from the universe three times a day eating > > vegetables. :-() > > -geo- > > Ok, Geo... yer bad, yer bad... (meaning 'good') ;-). A little nonvolitional Michael Jackson homage? Who's bad?? " They say the sky's the limit And to me that's really true But my friend you have seen nothing just wait 'til I get through . . . Because I'm Bad, I'm Bad- Come On (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad) You Know I'm Bad, I'm Bad- You Know It (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad) You Know I'm Bad, I'm Bad- Come On, You Know (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad) And The Whole World Has To Answer Right Now Just To Tell You Once Again, Who's Bad . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > My home is your home....come in. > You are wellcome!! Dont even have to take your shoes off....or something > like that. > > PS - Forgot to tell...if you dont find anybody here its because you did not > look well :>() > -geo- What, are ya hiding in the closet? ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes. Timebound and timless, limited and unlimited. No word will work to > > > describe/point to this " kind of relation " . > > > The world is being lived, space, time by the clock, things, objects...but as > > > the timeless is present, the unbounded is present, the unknown is > > > present....there is a sense of transcedence. The one " thing " that is NOT > > > present is the sense of separateness. That is impossible.....unless one > > > practices being separate from the universe three times a day eating > > > vegetables. :-() > > > -geo- > > > > Ok, Geo... yer bad, yer bad... (meaning 'good') ;-). > > A little nonvolitional Michael Jackson homage? Actually it's from that prison break comedy with Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor (forgot the name). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:27 PM Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > Yes. Timebound and timless, limited and unlimited. No word will work to > describe/point to this " kind of relation " . > The world is being lived, space, time by the clock, things, objects...but > as > the timeless is present, the unbounded is present, the unknown is > present....there is a sense of transcedence. The one " thing " that is NOT > present is the sense of separateness. That is impossible.....unless one > practices being separate from the universe three times a day eating > vegetables. :-() > -geo- Yes, there is no actual division anywhere. The dream-experience of a life unfolding over time, is not divided, is not volitioned - even as it unfolds with all its myriads of choices. Although it seems to involve time, its actuality is timeless. So, the transcendence of time is right there as time unfolds, seemingly, through the dream-experience. There is no need to get rid of anything or make anything different. Its beginning and end are the same dimensionless point. All points are one point, all dreams are included in each, all beings in each. Hence " me " and " you " can be applied in conversation and through dream actions - yet no " me " or " you " is ever the case, anywhere. Even the dream that attempts to revolve around an imagined I-center, arises nonvolitionally and returns to the same non-point. It never has its own center, although the appearance of attempting to have a center unfolded nonvolitionally through that dream-experience. Nothing is exempt from nondivision - nothing is left out or excluded. - D - Yes, and perhaps one feels no need to inquire further, but I like it....perhaps my predilection. So I ask myself: among all possible infinite dreams why this one - of so called human? The nature of this dream is not being established by just one human being. How do I know that? The answer is that although there is only my world, a quick glance tells me there are other human beings dreaming similar dreams. A quantum place has been established as " the human world " ....a groove, a mark of humanity... So even when the fragmentation ends, the human world sort of continues through its empty patterns. How do I know this? Because amongst all infinite possible empty patternings this is the one that goes on for a few moments more.... Nothing more to say....just wondering... -ggo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:52 PM Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > My home is your home....come in. > You are wellcome!! Dont even have to take your shoes off....or something > like that. > > PS - Forgot to tell...if you dont find anybody here its because you did > not > look well :>() > -geo- What, are ya hiding in the closet? ;-). -t- Hmmm....you wont find anybody there either...besides I dont have one. -egg- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.