Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:15 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:34 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > I would not put it this way. There is the feeling of fragmentation > > (here), > > the pain of it....then there is the sudden understanding of the > > meaning/scope of this " world/consciousness " . It is almost a falling away > > from it...a detachement. First there is the entity and the pain...then > > understanding and seeing. > > -geo- > > As long as it is: " first this, then this, " it is in the realm of time and > experience. > > One experience ends, and another (bigger, better) begins. > > But, still in the realm of time and experience. > > And whatever begins, ends. > -d- > > ---I understand that. But suddenly time happens and timelessness is just > theory. From timelessness is all clear and obvious. Then time apperas > again. > -geo- Time is free to appear. You are not " in " time. There isn't anyone " in " time. Time is always appearing through the timeless. The timeless is never gone. It can't be theory - by its nature, so to speak, although it doesn't have one (that's why it can't be theory). Theories are of time. - Dan - So... back to the beguining. The seeing of time/consciousness is timeless. -timeless- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I'm not trying to do anything, Geo. > > Words appear. > > Is there effort involved in that? > -tim- > > Irrelevant. > -geo- There is effort involved in the apparent entity's attempt to suit someone else's communicating style. To 'come across' a certain way, based on a projected " you out there " , in order to impress or 'get in good graces with' or 'be liked by' a projected 'someone else'. That 'someone else' being projected, never existed, was always projected based on the " me " assumed to be here. Thus, the effort can be released altogether, without much affecting communication at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:17 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > All this can be said conceptually or not. > The religious says " all is jesus christ " always unconditionally. But I > appreciate your effort. :>)) > -geo- My pleasure. It's easy and fun - so not much effort. You're correct, the unconditional isn't something had through words. It isn't constructed by belief, because of what someone said about it. -- Dan -- It is fun. It is that old seemingly paradoxical saying: more to the one who has and taking away from who doesnt. Can be through words, through odours, sights, sounds, some of those ar all of them or none - anything - becasue nothing is outahere. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:29 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I'm not trying to do anything, Geo. > > Words appear. > > Is there effort involved in that? > -tim- > > Irrelevant. > -geo- There is effort involved in the apparent entity's attempt to suit someone else's communicating style. To 'come across' a certain way, based on a projected " you out there " , in order to impress or 'get in good graces with' or 'be liked by' a projected 'someone else'. That 'someone else' being projected, never existed, was always projected based on the " me " assumed to be here. Thus, the effort can be released altogether, without much affecting communication at all. -tim- Of course. Its all one consciousness/mind. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:29 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I'm not trying to do anything, Geo. > > > > Words appear. > > > > Is there effort involved in that? > > -tim- > > > > Irrelevant. > > -geo- > > There is effort involved in the apparent entity's attempt to suit someone > else's communicating style. > > To 'come across' a certain way, based on a projected " you out there " , in > order to impress or 'get in good graces with' or 'be liked by' a projected > 'someone else'. > > That 'someone else' being projected, never existed, was always projected > based on the " me " assumed to be here. > > Thus, the effort can be released altogether, without much affecting > communication at all. > -tim- > > Of course. Its all one consciousness/mind. > -geo- This 'one consciousness/mind' isn't scattered among many different people, though. It's right here. One comes to accept and to see that there is nothing 'apart', nothing 'away' -- for anybody. Thus, there is nothing apart/away, period. Reality is not-two, meaning not apart for anybody, although not one big conglomerate, either. Our separation is our unity, and our unity is our separation. These two apparent poles are not two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:50 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:29 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I'm not trying to do anything, Geo. > > > > Words appear. > > > > Is there effort involved in that? > > -tim- > > > > Irrelevant. > > -geo- > > There is effort involved in the apparent entity's attempt to suit someone > else's communicating style. > > To 'come across' a certain way, based on a projected " you out there " , in > order to impress or 'get in good graces with' or 'be liked by' a projected > 'someone else'. > > That 'someone else' being projected, never existed, was always projected > based on the " me " assumed to be here. > > Thus, the effort can be released altogether, without much affecting > communication at all. > -tim- > > Of course. Its all one consciousness/mind. > -geo- This 'one consciousness/mind' isn't scattered among many different people, though. It's right here. One comes to accept and to see that there is nothing 'apart', nothing 'away' -- for anybody. Thus, there is nothing apart/away, period. Reality is not-two, meaning not apart for anybody, although not one big conglomerate, either. Our separation is our unity, and our unity is our separation. These two apparent poles are not two. -tim- There is only one " place/locus/time " in the universe. The seeing/understanding of this one movement of consciousness here is what is-ing. Nothing else. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > So... back to the beguining. The seeing of time/consciousness is timeless. > -timeless- Yes. And the seeing of it, is the being of it. Which is being it. Which is it. And in terms of " back to the beginning " : is always " before the beginning and after the end, undivided, timeless. " - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Maybe you'll become his guru! > > > > > > Are you " Omkaradatta " the guru? > > > > > > Smiles ... > > > > Apparent sarcasm, followed by " smiles " , doesn't suit ya. > > It's irony, not sarcasm. Fwiw, in regards to 'Omkaradatta the guru' -- That was something I came up with awhile back. When things got clear here, there was a desire to teach. In some schools of Buddhism, they call this 'the stench' ;=-). Not that there's anything wrong with teaching, although it was all 'self-proclaimed' and such. The name primarily because I've enjoyed Nisargadatta's writings a lot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Maybe you'll become his guru! > > > > > > > > Are you " Omkaradatta " the guru? > > > > > > > > Smiles ... > > > > > > Apparent sarcasm, followed by " smiles " , doesn't suit ya. > > > > It's irony, not sarcasm. > > Fwiw, in regards to 'Omkaradatta the guru' -- > > That was something I came up with awhile back. > > When things got clear here, there was a desire to teach. > > In some schools of Buddhism, they call this 'the stench' ;=-). > > Not that there's anything wrong with teaching, although it was all 'self-proclaimed' and such. > > The name primarily because I've enjoyed Nisargadatta's writings a lot. > Nevertheless, Ommy, we do teach. We teach every moment of our lives: who we are, who we are not. It's the only thing that is based on the evidence of disclosure. ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nevertheless, Ommy, we do teach. > > We teach every moment of our lives: who we are, who we are not. Sure. Not that we're in any actual contact, talking here on a mailing list. One is in contact with words, concepts. And even 'in person', one is in contact with one's own sensing of another, and one's own thoughts about that other. So, one is never in contact with another. One is the teacher, one is the learner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Nevertheless, Ommy, we do teach. > > > > We teach every moment of our lives: who we are, who we are not. > > Sure. > > Not that we're in any actual contact, talking here on a mailing list. > > One is in contact with words, concepts. > > And even 'in person', one is in contact with one's own sensing of another, and one's own thoughts about that other. > > So, one is never in contact with another. > > One is the teacher, one is the learner. > When does contact become communion, Ommy? I know it does because it is so, should the communication occur where both teacher and learner lose their identity. It's the field of abiding awareness, love. ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Nevertheless, Ommy, we do teach. > > > > > > We teach every moment of our lives: who we are, who we are not. > > > > Sure. > > > > Not that we're in any actual contact, talking here on a mailing list. > > > > One is in contact with words, concepts. > > > > And even 'in person', one is in contact with one's own sensing of another, and one's own thoughts about that other. > > > > So, one is never in contact with another. > > > > One is the teacher, one is the learner. > > > > > When does contact become communion, Ommy? Never, because there's no contact. There are not-two of us to come into contact. So, " contact becomes communion " when one " relates to " a projected other, when that " other " espresses ideas that resonate with us, that reflect our own experiences. It's a matter of happenstance, and nothing special. > I know it does because it is so, should the communication occur > where both teacher and learner lose their identity. > > It's the field of abiding awareness, love. We appear to disagree... that's OK. From here, abiding awareness is abiding in/as our own, not in/as a projected " other's " . Projecting an " other " is a recipe for separation and division. Sure, it feels good when we 'come together', because then one temporarily stops projecting separation and division. But we do not live cloven together as two bodies. That's impossible. Better to just not separate into 'me' and 'you'. Then, we're never separate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, Ommy, we do teach. > > > > > > > > We teach every moment of our lives: who we are, who we are not. > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > Not that we're in any actual contact, talking here on a mailing list. > > > > > > One is in contact with words, concepts. > > > > > > And even 'in person', one is in contact with one's own sensing of another, and one's own thoughts about that other. > > > > > > So, one is never in contact with another. > > > > > > One is the teacher, one is the learner. > > > > > > > > > When does contact become communion, Ommy? > > Never, because there's no contact. > > There are not-two of us to come into contact. > > So, " contact becomes communion " when one " relates to " a projected other, when that " other " espresses ideas that resonate with us, that reflect our own experiences. > > It's a matter of happenstance, and nothing special. > > > I know it does because it is so, should the communication occur > > where both teacher and learner lose their identity. > > > > It's the field of abiding awareness, love. > > We appear to disagree... that's OK. > > From here, abiding awareness is abiding in/as our own, not in/as a projected " other's " . > > Projecting an " other " is a recipe for separation and division. > > Sure, it feels good when we 'come together', because then one temporarily stops projecting separation and division. > > But we do not live cloven together as two bodies. That's impossible. > > Better to just not separate into 'me' and 'you'. > > Then, we're never separate. There's a difference between losing your identity in love with someone else who also is losing his/her identity, or finding out that you never had an identity in the first place. You could call the first situation losing your identity temporarily through an experience (that is imagined to be shared). It is fulfilling as long as the feeling lasts. The second is losing any location you had imagined yourself as having. The first is experiential. The second is nonexperience. It's like stepping out of experience to find you're nothing at all. Of course, describing it makes it sound like an experience. There's no sense of adventure to it. It's not going anywhere. At the same time, it's miraculous. Miraculously empty; yet nothing is missing or out of place, nor has ever been, anywhere. It reminds me of " now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch, " or " the meek shall inherit the earth, " or " yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. " - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, Ommy, we do teach. > > > > > > > > > > We teach every moment of our lives: who we are, who we are not. > > > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > Not that we're in any actual contact, talking here on a mailing list. > > > > > > > > One is in contact with words, concepts. > > > > > > > > And even 'in person', one is in contact with one's own sensing of another, and one's own thoughts about that other. > > > > > > > > So, one is never in contact with another. > > > > > > > > One is the teacher, one is the learner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > When does contact become communion, Ommy? > > > > Never, because there's no contact. > > > > There are not-two of us to come into contact. > > > > So, " contact becomes communion " when one " relates to " a projected other, when that " other " espresses ideas that resonate with us, that reflect our own experiences. > > > > It's a matter of happenstance, and nothing special. > > > > > I know it does because it is so, should the communication occur > > > where both teacher and learner lose their identity. > > > > > > It's the field of abiding awareness, love. > > > > We appear to disagree... that's OK. > > > > From here, abiding awareness is abiding in/as our own, not in/as a projected " other's " . > > > > Projecting an " other " is a recipe for separation and division. > > > > Sure, it feels good when we 'come together', because then one temporarily stops projecting separation and division. > > > > But we do not live cloven together as two bodies. That's impossible. > > > > Better to just not separate into 'me' and 'you'. > > > > Then, we're never separate. > > > > There's a difference between losing your identity in love with someone else who also is losing his/her identity, or finding out that you never had an identity in the first place. You could call the first situation losing your identity temporarily through an experience (that is imagined to be shared). It is fulfilling as long as the feeling lasts. The second is losing any location you had imagined yourself as having. The first is experiential. The second is nonexperience. It's like stepping out of experience to find you're nothing at all. Of course, describing it makes it sound like an experience. There's no sense of adventure to it. It's not going anywhere. At the same time, it's miraculous. Miraculously empty; yet nothing is missing or out of place, nor has ever been, anywhere. It reminds me of " now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch, " or " the meek shall inherit the earth, " or " yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. " > > - D - I was going to say something, too, but decided not to, deleted the message. There's no 'audience' for this stuff. Silence speaks. Words are silent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, Ommy, we do teach. > > > > > > > > > > > > We teach every moment of our lives: who we are, who we are not. > > > > > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > > > Not that we're in any actual contact, talking here on a mailing list. > > > > > > > > > > One is in contact with words, concepts. > > > > > > > > > > And even 'in person', one is in contact with one's own sensing of another, and one's own thoughts about that other. > > > > > > > > > > So, one is never in contact with another. > > > > > > > > > > One is the teacher, one is the learner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When does contact become communion, Ommy? > > > > > > Never, because there's no contact. > > > > > > There are not-two of us to come into contact. > > > > > > So, " contact becomes communion " when one " relates to " a projected other, when that " other " espresses ideas that resonate with us, that reflect our own experiences. > > > > > > It's a matter of happenstance, and nothing special. > > > > > > > I know it does because it is so, should the communication occur > > > > where both teacher and learner lose their identity. > > > > > > > > It's the field of abiding awareness, love. > > > > > > We appear to disagree... that's OK. > > > > > > From here, abiding awareness is abiding in/as our own, not in/as a projected " other's " . > > > > > > Projecting an " other " is a recipe for separation and division. > > > > > > Sure, it feels good when we 'come together', because then one temporarily stops projecting separation and division. > > > > > > But we do not live cloven together as two bodies. That's impossible. > > > > > > Better to just not separate into 'me' and 'you'. > > > > > > Then, we're never separate. > > > > > > > > There's a difference between losing your identity in love with someone else who also is losing his/her identity, or finding out that you never had an identity in the first place. You could call the first situation losing your identity temporarily through an experience (that is imagined to be shared). It is fulfilling as long as the feeling lasts. The second is losing any location you had imagined yourself as having. The first is experiential. The second is nonexperience. It's like stepping out of experience to find you're nothing at all. Of course, describing it makes it sound like an experience. There's no sense of adventure to it. It's not going anywhere. At the same time, it's miraculous. Miraculously empty; yet nothing is missing or out of place, nor has ever been, anywhere. It reminds me of " now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch, " or " the meek shall inherit the earth, " or " yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. " > > > > - D - > Yeah.......that's what I was trying to say. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:35 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Nevertheless, Ommy, we do teach. > > > > > > We teach every moment of our lives: who we are, who we are not. > > > > Sure. > > > > Not that we're in any actual contact, talking here on a mailing list. > > > > One is in contact with words, concepts. > > > > And even 'in person', one is in contact with one's own sensing of > > another, and one's own thoughts about that other. > > > > So, one is never in contact with another. > > > > One is the teacher, one is the learner. > > > > > When does contact become communion, Ommy? Never, because there's no contact. There are not-two of us to come into contact So, " contact becomes communion " when one " relates to " a projected other, when that " other " espresses ideas that resonate with us, that reflect our own experiences. It's a matter of happenstance, and nothing special. geo> When there is no projected other the relation betwen two people is defferent from when there is. If the projection is there there is no communion, no real communication. When the projection is not, there is only the common ground. Call it what you want, wont change a dime. Some call it communion. But one thing is for sure...when one " relates to " a projected other there is no communion. > I know it does because it is so, should the communication occur > where both teacher and learner lose their identity. > > It's the field of abiding awareness, love. We appear to disagree... that's OK. From here, abiding awareness is abiding in/as our own, not in/as a projected " other's " . Projecting an " other " is a recipe for separation and division. Sure, it feels good when we 'come together', because then one temporarily stops projecting separation and division. But we do not live cloven together as two bodies. That's impossible. Better to just not separate into 'me' and 'you'. Then, we're never separate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Better to just not separate into 'me' and 'you'.Then, we're never separate.-tim- You cannot start from there. That is the obvious consequence when there is only one field. Why be so partial with human bodies? It applies to anything and all things and nothings. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:03 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Maybe you'll become his guru! > > > > > > Are you " Omkaradatta " the guru? > > > > > > Smiles ... > > > > Apparent sarcasm, followed by " smiles " , doesn't suit ya. > > It's irony, not sarcasm. Fwiw, in regards to 'Omkaradatta the guru' -- That was something I came up with awhile back. When things got clear here, there was a desire to teach. In some schools of Buddhism, they call this 'the stench' ;=-). Not that there's anything wrong with teaching, although it was all 'self-proclaimed' and such. The name primarily because I've enjoyed Nisargadatta's writings a lot. -tim- Desire to teach. But you say only ego sees ego. Who are you going to teach if as a teacher you are not supposed to have an ego? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, Ommy, we do teach. > > > > > > > > > > > > We teach every moment of our lives: who we are, who we are not. > > > > > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > > > Not that we're in any actual contact, talking here on a mailing list. > > > > > > > > > > One is in contact with words, concepts. > > > > > > > > > > And even 'in person', one is in contact with one's own sensing of another, and one's own thoughts about that other. > > > > > > > > > > So, one is never in contact with another. > > > > > > > > > > One is the teacher, one is the learner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When does contact become communion, Ommy? > > > > > > Never, because there's no contact. > > > > > > There are not-two of us to come into contact. > > > > > > So, " contact becomes communion " when one " relates to " a projected other, when that " other " espresses ideas that resonate with us, that reflect our own experiences. > > > > > > It's a matter of happenstance, and nothing special. > > > > > > > I know it does because it is so, should the communication occur > > > > where both teacher and learner lose their identity. > > > > > > > > It's the field of abiding awareness, love. > > > > > > We appear to disagree... that's OK. > > > > > > From here, abiding awareness is abiding in/as our own, not in/as a projected " other's " . > > > > > > Projecting an " other " is a recipe for separation and division. > > > > > > Sure, it feels good when we 'come together', because then one temporarily stops projecting separation and division. > > > > > > But we do not live cloven together as two bodies. That's impossible. > > > > > > Better to just not separate into 'me' and 'you'. > > > > > > Then, we're never separate. > > > > > > > > There's a difference between losing your identity in love with someone else who also is losing his/her identity, or finding out that you never had an identity in the first place. You could call the first situation losing your identity temporarily through an experience (that is imagined to be shared). It is fulfilling as long as the feeling lasts. The second is losing any location you had imagined yourself as having. The first is experiential. The second is nonexperience. It's like stepping out of experience to find you're nothing at all. Of course, describing it makes it sound like an experience. There's no sense of adventure to it. It's not going anywhere. At the same time, it's miraculous. Miraculously empty; yet nothing is missing or out of place, nor has ever been, anywhere. It reminds me of " now my empty cup tastes as sweet as the punch, " or " the meek shall inherit the earth, " or " yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. " > > > > - D - > > I was going to say something, too, but decided not to, deleted the message. > > There's no 'audience' for this stuff. True. > Silence speaks. > > Words are silent. Yes. -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Guys I am sorry to intrude in this way but this is great stuff, this is way too similar to my experience for me to ignore you, but I have a question: Once we try again and become related back to " that " , me is no longer in charge...actually I is related to " something " higher which takes control of my [the] lower nature then sweet Love and Compassion (the ultimate truth) pours from the purest source. This is also a timeless experience which is not the ultimate one but only hints at a new direction, a new beginning. However when I fall back into me, it seems me [my habitual] experiences the flow of time again. So, my situation is like that of someone which must start and start it all over again in order to become related to " that " . Yes, those experiences have beginning and end. Now, how you guys stay longer (forever) into the realm of timeless I...connected with the higher? I believe there´s really nothing " to do " , but at the same time a gentle effortless effort to come back to the here and now through [questioning+breathing+attention+bodysensation together](this is only a way to put it because of words/language not helping much, must be done by someone [who in me?], for such a disengagement. Or call it detachment if you like, from me. Something still depends on me after all...what is that? what do you think? is it possible to stay conected forever?... cuevastrade Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > I would not put it this way. There is the feeling of fragmentation (here), > > the pain of it....then there is the sudden understanding of the > > meaning/scope of this " world/consciousness " . It is almost a falling away > > from it...a detachement. First there is the entity and the pain...then > > understanding and seeing. > > -geo- > > As long as it is: " first this, then this, " it is in the realm of time and experience. > > One experience ends, and another (bigger, better) begins. > > But, still in the realm of time and experience. > > And whatever begins, ends. > > Also, experiences that begin and end are localized to whatever being is associated with having that experience (which being also is assumed to have its beginning, ending, memory-chain, and physical limits - allowing it to be named and localized in space-time). > > Thus, Geo saying, " I understood world/consciousness and I felt a falling away, a detachment, " is different from Joe Blow saying, " I feel like crap. My boss was rude to me at work today, and I'm going to get a beer and forget about it. " > > Just two different versions of localized experience, with their apparent referents (Geo and Joe, two different I's, two different experiences in their relative framework for " present experience. " ) > > Both these sets of localized experiencing, with beginnings and endings appears in and through awareness. > > I'd like to note that the word " awareness " has a beginning and end to its use and is localized in a sentence. The actuality is not nameable, and does not begin and end, and is not localized. In this sense, " awareness " is similar to " mutual co-arising of phenomena, " which is not itself a localized phenomenon, but becomes one when offered as a description. > > - Dan - > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cuevastrade " <cuevastrade wrote: > > Guys I am sorry to intrude in this way but this is great stuff, this is way too similar to my experience for me to ignore you, but I have a question: > > Once we try again and become related back to " that " , me is no longer in charge...actually I is related to " something " higher which takes control of my [the] lower nature then sweet Love and Compassion (the ultimate truth) pours from the purest source. This is also a timeless experience which is not the ultimate one but only hints at a new direction, a new beginning. However when I fall back into me, it seems me [my habitual] experiences the flow of time again. So, my situation is like that of someone which must start and start it all over again in order to become related to " that " . Yes, those experiences have beginning and end. > > Now, how you guys stay longer (forever) into the realm of timeless I...connected with the higher? I believe there´s really nothing " to do " , but at the same time a gentle effortless effort to come back to the here and now through [questioning+breathing+attention+bodysensation together](this is only a way to put it because of words/language not helping much, must be done by someone [who in me?], for such a disengagement. Or call it detachment if you like, from me. Something still depends on me after all...what is that? what do you think? is it possible to stay conected forever?... > > cuevastrade > > There is a vast experiential menu available to the sense of self......ranging from the deepest despair to the most ecstatic bliss....but it seeks that which it imagines exists outside of its personal arena......and for it......there is no such thing. It is the best and most complex form of sentience that life has ever had to offer.....simply because one of its mandates is to want ever more. .......and you are it. Pretty neat huh? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cuevastrade " <cuevastrade wrote: > > Now, how you guys stay longer (forever) into the realm of timeless > I...connected with the higher? The notion of 'higher' and 'lower' is surrendered, the notion that there is something 'outside', something 'other' to be gotten to, or communicated with, or acquired, or achieved, or attained, or experienced. In other words, it isn't that one stays connected with something. The notion of connection, that there is a " here " to connect to " there " , drops altogether. There is nothing external to 'what is', or internal to 'what is'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cuevastrade " <cuevastrade@> wrote: > > > > Now, how you guys stay longer (forever) into the realm of timeless > I...connected with the higher? > > The notion of 'higher' and 'lower' is surrendered, the notion that there is something 'outside', something 'other' to be gotten to, or communicated with, or acquired, or achieved, or attained, or experienced. > > In other words, it isn't that one stays connected with something. The notion of connection, that there is a " here " to connect to " there " , drops altogether. There is nothing external to 'what is', or internal to 'what is'. > P.S. look at it as an extreme simplification, that is also an 'expansion'. One's personal horizons narrow and disappear. One ceases to look for anything outside 'what is, now'. Time is no longer a factor, the mind of the past goes 'poof'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 To connect, there has to be two divided. A boundary between. The original nothing, the all, that which can't be named ... Has no division. How could it? There is nothing outside of it to divide it. There is nothing separable inside of it. The mind of division, the conceptual mind, cannot touch this. The consciousness that is of time cannot touch this. Clarity is all. No becoming. No getting somewhere in time. No learning how to touch it more and more often. At once, this makes it difficult and easy. Difficult for a being in time that wants to change the quality of its experience or be seen a certain way by others. Easy because there is no doing involved. Truly no doing involved, no becoming, no getting. - D - Nisargadatta , " cuevastrade " <cuevastrade wrote: > > Guys I am sorry to intrude in this way but this is great stuff, this is way too similar to my experience for me to ignore you, but I have a question: > > Once we try again and become related back to " that " , me is no longer in charge...actually I is related to " something " higher which takes control of my [the] lower nature then sweet Love and Compassion (the ultimate truth) pours from the purest source. This is also a timeless experience which is not the ultimate one but only hints at a new direction, a new beginning. However when I fall back into me, it seems me [my habitual] experiences the flow of time again. So, my situation is like that of someone which must start and start it all over again in order to become related to " that " . Yes, those experiences have beginning and end. > > Now, how you guys stay longer (forever) into the realm of timeless I...connected with the higher? I believe there´s really nothing " to do " , but at the same time a gentle effortless effort to come back to the here and now through [questioning+breathing+attention+bodysensation together](this is only a way to put it because of words/language not helping much, must be done by someone [who in me?], for such a disengagement. Or call it detachment if you like, from me. Something still depends on me after all...what is that? what do you think? is it possible to stay conected forever?... > > cuevastrade > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I would not put it this way. There is the feeling of fragmentation (here), > > > the pain of it....then there is the sudden understanding of the > > > meaning/scope of this " world/consciousness " . It is almost a falling away > > > from it...a detachement. First there is the entity and the pain...then > > > understanding and seeing. > > > -geo- > > > > As long as it is: " first this, then this, " it is in the realm of time and experience. > > > > One experience ends, and another (bigger, better) begins. > > > > But, still in the realm of time and experience. > > > > And whatever begins, ends. > > > > Also, experiences that begin and end are localized to whatever being is associated with having that experience (which being also is assumed to have its beginning, ending, memory-chain, and physical limits - allowing it to be named and localized in space-time). > > > > Thus, Geo saying, " I understood world/consciousness and I felt a falling away, a detachment, " is different from Joe Blow saying, " I feel like crap. My boss was rude to me at work today, and I'm going to get a beer and forget about it. " > > > > Just two different versions of localized experience, with their apparent referents (Geo and Joe, two different I's, two different experiences in their relative framework for " present experience. " ) > > > > Both these sets of localized experiencing, with beginnings and endings appears in and through awareness. > > > > I'd like to note that the word " awareness " has a beginning and end to its use and is localized in a sentence. The actuality is not nameable, and does not begin and end, and is not localized. In this sense, " awareness " is similar to " mutual co-arising of phenomena, " which is not itself a localized phenomenon, but becomes one when offered as a description. > > > > - Dan - > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > To connect, there has to be two divided. > > A boundary between. > > The original nothing, the all, that which can't be named ... > > Has no division. > > How could it? > > There is nothing outside of it to divide it. > > There is nothing separable inside of it. > > The mind of division, the conceptual mind, cannot touch this. > > The consciousness that is of time cannot touch this. > > Clarity is all. Nice :-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
