Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change here? > > -geo- > > " Change " never changes. > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). Yes. The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the aware-ing of time, the timing of being. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > The fear that is time. > > Time is always running out. > > Time always involves avoidance. > > Well, not always. > > One who dies fully, understands time differently, immediately, > without division, without an observer position. The 'understanding of time' immediately, though, isn't time. It has been called 'the eternal Now'. Now, as synchronous being. No attempt to 'be elsewhere', to be in some other time, some other place. J. Krishnamurti said 'complete and total attention'. It sounds kind of trivial, like something a schoolteacher would say, but it isn't. It is 'what is'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > The fear that is time. > > > > Time is always running out. > > > > Time always involves avoidance. > > > > Well, not always. > > > > One who dies fully, understands time differently, immediately, > > without division, without an observer position. > > The 'understanding of time' immediately, though, isn't time. > > It has been called 'the eternal Now'. > > Now, as synchronous being. > > No attempt to 'be elsewhere', to be in some other time, some other place. > > J. Krishnamurti said 'complete and total attention'. > > It sounds kind of trivial, like something a schoolteacher would say, but it isn't. > > It is 'what is'. > Yes, 'what is' K often was asked how to achieve complete and total attention and he replied that it is not possible to constantly be in that state. The only way possible is to be aware when one is inattentive. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they disappear when there is silence....again > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means, when real Self appears, again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a real Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > real Self is all there is for real... > > > > > > > > > > little restless imaginary egos can't see It... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > Toom seems allergic to the pointer " the Self " , for whatever it's worth. > > > > > > > > Most of the time, this is due to wanting to be rid of oneself, > > > > > > > > which is a form of holding onto oneself, as one has to be separate from what one wants to be rid of. > > > > > > > > So there ;-). > > > > > > P.S. the interesting thing, from here, is that Toom accepts some of what Ramana Maharshi said, but not other parts (e.g. he spoke extensively of The Self). > > > > > > Ironically, this is what selves do... pick and choose what suits them in sages' teachings, rather than conclude " OK, this fellow is genuine " , and go about looking to see what the poor fellow was trying to communicate, as a whole. > > > > > > This is because the 'goal' of the self is to survive as an imaginarily continuous entity. And so, nothing that could trouble this goal is ever looked too closely at. > > > > > > Thus, when Ramana talks about " the Self " he's wrong in some way, but when Ramana says this or that (which fits the 'me's' safety limits) he's right. > > > > > > I guess Ramana was 'awake' part of the time, and 'asleep' the other part, or something, right? :-p. > > > > > > > > > " Ramana " is the Self.... > > > > ...like all others who are finished with this their little imaginary ego & world.... > > > > means, with their choiceless path to Self > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > Is that the same thing as the yellow brick road? > > > > :-0 > > > > toombaru > toombarus imagination......again.... how come that you can't imagine an enlightened cow....?... lol Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they disappear when there is silence....again > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means, when real Self appears, again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a real Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > real Self is all there is for real... > > > > > > > > > > little restless imaginary egos can't see It... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > Toom seems allergic to the pointer " the Self " , for whatever it's worth. > > > > > > > > Most of the time, this is due to wanting to be rid of oneself, > > > > > > > > which is a form of holding onto oneself, as one has to be separate from what one wants to be rid of. > > > > > > > > So there ;-). > > > > > > P.S. the interesting thing, from here, is that Toom accepts some of what Ramana Maharshi said, but not other parts (e.g. he spoke extensively of The Self). > > > > > > Ironically, this is what selves do... pick and choose what suits them in sages' teachings, rather than conclude " OK, this fellow is genuine " , and go about looking to see what the poor fellow was trying to communicate, as a whole. > > > > > > This is because the 'goal' of the self is to survive as an imaginarily continuous entity. And so, nothing that could trouble this goal is ever looked too closely at. > > > > > > Thus, when Ramana talks about " the Self " he's wrong in some way, but when Ramana says this or that (which fits the 'me's' safety limits) he's right. > > > > > > I guess Ramana was 'awake' part of the time, and 'asleep' the other part, or something, right? :-p. > > > > > > > > > > > Ramana got some things right......but an enlightened cow......cooooome oooooooooooooonnn. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Namaste, > > Ramana just helped the cow purify its mind of samskaras and vasanas, so it was pure in reflecting the Self. At that point it was a natural step as there is only one mind...Tony. ....sure that there isn't any mind called " toombaru " beside this your mentionned one mind?.... Marc > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:41 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change here? > -geo- " Change " never changes. It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). -tim- Not sure..... It is qualitiless unchangingly present. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:59 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:49 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:15 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:51 AM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is physical suffering and there is suffering induced by the > > > > fearful imagination of the ego. > > > > > > > > They have been given the same name........but they are not the same. > > > > > > Yes, let's split suffering in two, now. > > > > > > The more bits and pieces we can get, the better. > > > > > > The more thought can divide, the more 'in control' it feels. > > > -tim- > > > > > > Nop. There are real sufferings and imagined ones. > > > -geo- > > > > Nope. > > > > There is an end to analysis. > > > > The need to make the distinction between real and imagined ends. > > > > One is the suffering. > > > > One stops evading and thinking one has things figured out. > > > > It is the end of having anything figured out. > > > > Go figure. > > > > -- D -- > > > > How can I be the suffering that I am looking at? > > -geo- > > Geo - > > There is no distance apart between looker and looked at. > > The attempt to establish a distance apart involves a wish not to be > suffering, to dismiss suffering, to separate from it, to be able to > control > it. > > When the attempt to maintain distance breaks down, one is the suffering. > > One is one's experiencing. > > The experiencer is what is experienced. > > There is no way to end the thought-involved division between subject and > object, except for the apparent continuity of thought to " break down. " > > This ends any sense of a distance between observer and observed. > > One is the suffering, and the suffering is not separated from the > awareness > of it. > > One is every aspect of the present perception, the perceptual moment as it > is. > > It has never not been this way. > > However, thought invented a scenario with a false distance that never > actually was there. > > Thought, by attempting continuity and maintaining a sense of reality and > the > known, constructed an avoidance mechanism, a sense of observing from a > separated position. > > It is not like there is some separate entity called " thought " that divides > things. > > It is rather that, resorting to words, it will sound like there are > separable entities. > > Thought doesn't " do " anything. > > One is aware. > > One observes thought. > > Thought and the observer are not separated. > > Thus, thinker is not separated from thought, thought is not separated from > the present experiential moment, the perception is undivided -- one is > aware > (one is aware-ing). > > - D - > > Dan - We can go round and round beating the same bush ...trying to express > this. > You are using different wordings to say the same thing. There is no > distance, object and subject are the same, there is no elswhere, suffering > is me and it is not, the world is me and it is not, consicousness is not > me > and it is. There can not be anything that is not me. There is no other > " time " ... All this said..... is different from the projected idea of some > inner entity looking at some " outside " world. > -geo- Talking about this tends to go in one of these directions: It is all this. It is all that. I am all. I am nothing. I dissolve. I never was. Only I ever was. Nothing is everything. There is neither this nor that. I am you. You are me. There is no me or you. There is only being. Nothing is. Being is nonbeing. There is neither being nor nonbeing. That's pretty much it. Understood clearly, they are all ways of pointing to nothing that is. All the talk is just to get the mind to the point where it is open to be nothing, have nothing, be empty. So it's not the words. It's the being empty. The empty that is all. Primordial empty ... that is. The shining void god. The totality. The all before you, that is your being. The empty perceptual moment, as is. When words are offered, one may sense a breathing through the words. Something unsaid. The nothing one is. A breath of fresh air. A cataclysm. A crystalization. A nothing happening. A happening nothing. - D - But some-no-thing never changes with time. Will you deny that? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:41 AM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change here? > > -geo- > > " Change " never changes. > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). Yes. The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the aware-ing of time, the timing of being. - D - It is the " ing " that never changes. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > The fear that is time. > > > > Time is always running out. > > > > Time always involves avoidance. > > > > Well, not always. > > > > One who dies fully, understands time differently, immediately, > > without division, without an observer position. > > The 'understanding of time' immediately, though, isn't time. > > It has been called 'the eternal Now'. > > Now, as synchronous being. > > No attempt to 'be elsewhere', to be in some other time, some other place. > > J. Krishnamurti said 'complete and total attention'. > > It sounds kind of trivial, like something a schoolteacher would say, but it isn't. > > It is 'what is'. I understand time timelessly. If you say, " I'll meet you tomorrow at 12:00, can you bring a newspaper? " I'm capable to get gas in my car, figure out where to stop on the way to pick up a newspaper, and calculate the driving time so I arrive at 12:00. That all of this happens spontaneously, timelessly, doesn't preclude the kind of calculating involved in assuming time for human communications. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:41 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change here? > > -geo- > > " Change " never changes. > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). > -tim- > > Not sure..... It is qualitiless unchangingly present. > -geo- Yes, well-said. The now has no qualities. Not even the quality of being now. Not even the quality of change or being unchanging. And being aware without quality is not something the human being brings into the equation. It is not a matter of the human being bringing the quality of being attentive. Indeed, there are no qualities. The awareness is total, undivided, therefore no one to enter into it as if it were a state, and no one existing outside of it. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > - D - > > But some-no-thing never changes with time. Will you deny that? > -geo- How can I deny what I cannot be apart from? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:41 AM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change here? > > > -geo- > > > > " Change " never changes. > > > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). > > Yes. > > The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the aware-ing > of time, the timing of being. > > - D - > > It is the " ing " that never changes. > -geo- Yes. Live as the " ing " - Indeed one has no choice. It is the " ing " alone that is. Which is very funny. Because the common-sense view of reality is that the " ing " is very miniscule, hardly even noticeable. And everything else is very solid. And the truth is the reverse of that. Common-sense is stood on its head. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:09 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > - D - > > But some-no-thing never changes with time. Will you deny that? > -geo- How can I deny what I cannot be apart from? - D - yes....I amnot challenging. Just wondering if we can touch the same thing... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:11 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:41 AM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change here? > > > -geo- > > > > " Change " never changes. > > > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). > > Yes. > > The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the > aware-ing > of time, the timing of being. > > - D - > > It is the " ing " that never changes. > -geo- Yes. Live as the " ing " - Indeed one has no choice. It is the " ing " alone that is. Which is very funny. Because the common-sense view of reality is that the " ing " is very miniscule, hardly even noticeable. And everything else is very solid. And the truth is the reverse of that. Common-sense is stood on its head. - D - So...somehow...it is difficult to express...in this ing...in the direction/locus of this ing...there is something that does not change. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:09 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > - D - > > > > But some-no-thing never changes with time. Will you deny that? > > -geo- > > How can I deny what I cannot be apart from? > > - D - > > yes....I amnot challenging. Just wondering if we can touch the same thing... > -geo- I didn't think you were challenging. We are this nothing without any we materializing from it. We can't touch it. It already is everything we are touching, and the touching of it, simultaneously, without division. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:11 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:41 AM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change here? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > " Change " never changes. > > > > > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). > > > > Yes. > > > > The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the > > aware-ing > > of time, the timing of being. > > > > - D - > > > > It is the " ing " that never changes. > > -geo- > > Yes. > > Live as the " ing " - > > Indeed one has no choice. > > It is the " ing " alone that is. > > Which is very funny. > > Because the common-sense view of reality is that the " ing " is very > miniscule, hardly even noticeable. > > And everything else is very solid. > > And the truth is the reverse of that. > > Common-sense is stood on its head. > > - D - > > So...somehow...it is difficult to express...in this ing...in the > direction/locus of this ing...there is something that does not change. > -geo- Yes. Everything is changing. The " ing " of the changing isn't changing. The " ing " is aware. The " ing " is misunderstood as a momentary bit of time, between a past extending behind on and on and a future yet to come for millions of years. The " ing " is actually what is. There isn't any past or future - what we call the past and future is the " ing " with images projected onto it - backwards and forwards - from an imaginary position. Backwards and forwards can refer to time and to space. And that is no accident. Time and space are the same, and they are constructed the same way, in relation to each other - they only become " tangible " if an observer is given an imaginary point-dot location. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:46 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:09 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > - D - > > > > But some-no-thing never changes with time. Will you deny that? > > -geo- > > How can I deny what I cannot be apart from? > > - D - > > yes....I amnot challenging. Just wondering if we can touch the same > thing... > -geo- I didn't think you were challenging. We are this nothing without any we materializing from it. We can't touch it. It already is everything we are touching, and the touching of it, simultaneously, without division. - D - Yes. I would not say this " first unchanging person ting " is part of consciousness. Would you? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:51 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:11 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:41 AM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change > > > > here? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > " Change " never changes. > > > > > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). > > > > Yes. > > > > The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the > > aware-ing > > of time, the timing of being. > > > > - D - > > > > It is the " ing " that never changes. > > -geo- > > Yes. > > Live as the " ing " - > > Indeed one has no choice. > > It is the " ing " alone that is. > > Which is very funny. > > Because the common-sense view of reality is that the " ing " is very > miniscule, hardly even noticeable. > > And everything else is very solid. > > And the truth is the reverse of that. > > Common-sense is stood on its head. > > - D - > > So...somehow...it is difficult to express...in this ing...in the > direction/locus of this ing...there is something that does not change. > -geo- Yes. Everything is changing. The " ing " of the changing isn't changing. The " ing " is aware. The " ing " is misunderstood as a momentary bit of time, between a past extending behind on and on and a future yet to come for millions of years. The " ing " is actually what is. There isn't any past or future - what we call the past and future is the " ing " with images projected onto it - backwards and forwards - from an imaginary position. Backwards and forwards can refer to time and to space. And that is no accident. Time and space are the same, and they are constructed the same way, in relation to each other - they only become " tangible " if an observer is given an imaginary point-dot location. - D - Yes...and somehow I dont think this location/consciousness must nescessarily interfere with the unchanging nature of that. Only when that unchanging thing is missused, missplaced as ME that interference happens indeed. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:46 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:09 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > But some-no-thing never changes with time. Will you deny that? > > > -geo- > > > > How can I deny what I cannot be apart from? > > > > - D - > > > > yes....I amnot challenging. Just wondering if we can touch the same > > thing... > > -geo- > > I didn't think you were challenging. > > We are this nothing without any we materializing from it. > > We can't touch it. > > It already is everything we are touching, and the touching of it, > simultaneously, without division. > > - D - > > > Yes. I would not say this " first unchanging person ting " is part of > consciousness. Would you? > -geo- When you say " first unchanging person thing " I assume you are referring to the sense of an I that continues the same through someone's life, that is the subjective sense of existing for that person, as that person, associated with a particular body-mind? If this is what you mean, that I-sense does not hold up under " full attention " so to speak, by which I mean " undivided awareness. " (This has a lot to do with the " revolt " of Buddhism against Hinduism, and the migration of Buddhism from India to China and southeast Asia. Hinduism tended to equate the " I-sense " with " awareness " and " totality. " And tended to view totality as Self. Buddhism questioned the substantiality of the " I-sense " and questioned any sense of essence, of self or Self, being associated with " what is. " Although in some advaita texts and teachings, self and Self is questioned in a similar way to Buddhism, as if awareness won't allow self or Self to continue to be assumed, at a certain point.) The impersonal awareness isn't even an awareness. It has no concept of itself, therefore no sense of an awareness being there. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:22 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:46 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:09 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > But some-no-thing never changes with time. Will you deny that? > > > -geo- > > > > How can I deny what I cannot be apart from? > > > > - D - > > > > yes....I amnot challenging. Just wondering if we can touch the same > > thing... > > -geo- > > I didn't think you were challenging. > > We are this nothing without any we materializing from it. > > We can't touch it. > > It already is everything we are touching, and the touching of it, > simultaneously, without division. > > - D - > > > Yes. I would not say this " first unchanging person ting " is part of > consciousness. Would you? > -geo- When you say " first unchanging person thing " I assume you are referring to the sense of an I that continues the same through someone's life, that is the subjective sense of existing for that person, as that person, associated with a particular body-mind? -d- Dan, I have not changed the issue. I have not moved. That ting is non-changingly present independently of a particular body-mind. When it comes down to that then it is already corrupted into some ME, is that what you mean? -geo- If this is what you mean, that I-sense does not hold up under " full attention " so to speak, by which I mean " undivided awareness. " -d- I have not talked about full attention - it was tim I think. -geo- (This has a lot to do with the " revolt " of Buddhism against Hinduism, and the migration of Buddhism from India to China and southeast Asia. Hinduism tended to equate the " I-sense " with " awareness " and " totality. " And tended to view totality as Self. Buddhism questioned the substantiality of the " I-sense " and questioned any sense of essence, of self or Self, being associated with " what is. " Although in some advaita texts and teachings, self and Self is questioned in a similar way to Buddhism, as if awareness won't allow self or Self to continue to be assumed, at a certain point.) The impersonal awareness isn't even an awareness. It has no concept of itself, therefore no sense of an awareness being there. - D - I think we are a bit off now....:>)) -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:22 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:46 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:09 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > But some-no-thing never changes with time. Will you deny that? > > > -geo- > > > > How can I deny what I cannot be apart from? > > > > - D - > > > > yes....I amnot challenging. Just wondering if we can touch the same > > thing... > > -geo- > > I didn't think you were challenging. > > We are this nothing without any we materializing from it. > > We can't touch it. > > It already is everything we are touching, and the touching of it, > simultaneously, without division. > > - D - > > > Yes. I would not say this " first unchanging person ting " is part of > consciousness. Would you? > -geo- When you say " first unchanging person thing " I assume you are referring to the sense of an I that continues the same through someone's life, that is the subjective sense of existing for that person, as that person, associated with a particular body-mind? If this is what you mean, that I-sense does not hold up under " full attention " so to speak, by which I mean " undivided awareness. " (This has a lot to do with the " revolt " of Buddhism against Hinduism, and the migration of Buddhism from India to China and southeast Asia. Hinduism tended to equate the " I-sense " with " awareness " and " totality. " And tended to view totality as Self. Buddhism questioned the substantiality of the " I-sense " and questioned any sense of essence, of self or Self, being associated with " what is. " Although in some advaita texts and teachings, self and Self is questioned in a similar way to Buddhism, as if awareness won't allow self or Self to continue to be assumed, at a certain point.) The impersonal awareness isn't even an awareness. It has no concept of itself, therefore no sense of an awareness being there. - D - Just curiosity: before you came back to write this last post...have you done some stuff, something that might have disrupted the train of " observation " we where undertaking? Just curiosity really... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:51 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:11 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:41 AM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > > > > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change > > > > > here? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > " Change " never changes. > > > > > > > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the > > > aware-ing > > > of time, the timing of being. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > It is the " ing " that never changes. > > > -geo- > > > > Yes. > > > > Live as the " ing " - > > > > Indeed one has no choice. > > > > It is the " ing " alone that is. > > > > Which is very funny. > > > > Because the common-sense view of reality is that the " ing " is very > > miniscule, hardly even noticeable. > > > > And everything else is very solid. > > > > And the truth is the reverse of that. > > > > Common-sense is stood on its head. > > > > - D - > > > > So...somehow...it is difficult to express...in this ing...in the > > direction/locus of this ing...there is something that does not change. > > -geo- > > Yes. > > Everything is changing. > > The " ing " of the changing isn't changing. > > The " ing " is aware. > > The " ing " is misunderstood as a momentary bit of time, between a past > extending behind on and on and a future yet to come for millions of years. > > The " ing " is actually what is. > > There isn't any past or future - what we call the past and future is the > " ing " with images projected onto it - backwards and forwards - from an > imaginary position. > > Backwards and forwards can refer to time and to space. > > And that is no accident. > > Time and space are the same, and they are constructed the same way, in > relation to each other - they only become " tangible " if an observer is given > an imaginary point-dot location. > > - D - > > Yes...and somehow I dont think this location/consciousness must nescessarily > interfere with the unchanging nature of that. Only when that unchanging > thing is missused, missplaced as ME that interference happens indeed. > -geo- I very much agree. One understands the positioning of the I-point as a theoretical construct. It is a way to establish time, location, events that can be talked about, how memory images will be organized. It appears to me that organization of memory images is the basis for establishing the I-point. That allows a coherent sense of time and predictability of events to develop. Then, the I-point becomes a reference for the attempt to control those events (either " inside " or " outside " the organism). As emotionality attaches to these I-references having to do with establishing a feeling of control and volition, a really-existing self seems to be there, a self that has feelings, needs, desires, reactions to threats. One may be tempted to say that there are some people who understand, and those people see that the I-point is only a theoretical point, much like devising a map. The map is not the terrain. They see this directly, not because someone told them about it. They have died to the accumulation of emotion and memory constituting the sense of a really existing self. And other people feel the I-point as a real being of its own, themselves, as self. They haven't died to self. This is a great temptation, and one hears this theme over and over in different ways. However, at the same time one hears this, or one may say it, one understands that this distinction between " people who understand " and " people who don't understand " is also theory. To have emotionality and judgment about this issue also is " self. " So, that distinction is also part of a map, and not the actual terrain. Even the distinction " an organism " and " everything else that is not that organism " is part of a map, a conceptual overlay. What is freeing about recognizing this is that the life that was attributed to an individual organism is not actually situated in or with that organism. This is also so of the awareness. One understands that volitionality and existence are feelings that build up over time as an accumulation. One is aware nonvolitionally, with no location, and no sense of personally having an existence anywhere, through any body. And yet, cognitions are free to organize. Forms are free to appear. Thought is free to arise. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > -d- > > Dan, I have not changed the issue. I have not moved. That ting is > non-changingly present independently of a particular body-mind. When it > comes down to that then it is already corrupted into some ME, is that what > you mean? > -geo- The body-mind as a separately existing construct is not there in terms of that. By that, I mean the nonthing that is non-changing amidst and as the changingness. The changingness includes all body-minds, all trees and rivers, all planets, all stars, all movements of energy in space, all movements in all dimensions. This non-changing awareness is the changingness. We have said this. It has no concept of itself. It never will. When we talk about it, and give it conceptual references (such as no-thing, or unchanging awareness, or god, or buddha-mind, or whatever) we imply that it has some way to conceptualize itself. Simply by speaking of it, we distort. It cannot have a thought for itself, of itself, or know itself in any way. It cannot know itself in terms of not being able to know itself. One must laugh, because keeping silent about this doesn't make it any clearer than talking about it. It is not like you sit in meditation silently and become more and more clear about this - but then you talk and it gets distorted. Not at all. Being silent doesn't do anything, talking doesn't do anything. Smiles, - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:22 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:46 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:09 PM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > But some-no-thing never changes with time. Will you deny that? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > How can I deny what I cannot be apart from? > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > yes....I amnot challenging. Just wondering if we can touch the same > > > thing... > > > -geo- > > > > I didn't think you were challenging. > > > > We are this nothing without any we materializing from it. > > > > We can't touch it. > > > > It already is everything we are touching, and the touching of it, > > simultaneously, without division. > > > > - D - > > > > > > Yes. I would not say this " first unchanging person ting " is part of > > consciousness. Would you? > > -geo- > > When you say " first unchanging person thing " I assume you are referring to > the sense of an I that continues the same through someone's life, that is > the subjective sense of existing for that person, as that person, associated > with a particular body-mind? > > If this is what you mean, that I-sense does not hold up under " full > attention " so to speak, by which I mean " undivided awareness. " > > (This has a lot to do with the " revolt " of Buddhism against Hinduism, and > the migration of Buddhism from India to China and southeast Asia. Hinduism > tended to equate the " I-sense " with " awareness " and " totality. " And tended > to view totality as Self. Buddhism questioned the substantiality of the > " I-sense " and questioned any sense of essence, of self or Self, being > associated with " what is. " > > Although in some advaita texts and teachings, self and Self is questioned in > a similar way to Buddhism, as if awareness won't allow self or Self to > continue to be assumed, at a certain point.) > > The impersonal awareness isn't even an awareness. It has no concept of > itself, therefore no sense of an awareness being there. > > - D - > > Just curiosity: before you came back to write this last post...have you done > some stuff, something that might have disrupted the train of " observation " > we where undertaking? Just curiosity really... > -geo- Yes. I am pretty busy doing stuff, on and off, multi-tasking. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:30 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > -d- > > Dan, I have not changed the issue. I have not moved. That ting is > non-changingly present independently of a particular body-mind. When it > comes down to that then it is already corrupted into some ME, is that what > you mean? > -geo- The body-mind as a separately existing construct is not there in terms of that. By that, I mean the nonthing that is non-changing amidst and as the changingness. The changingness includes all body-minds, all trees and rivers, all planets, all stars, all movements of energy in space, all movements in all dimensions. This non-changing awareness is the changingness. We have said this. It has no concept of itself. It never will. When we talk about it, and give it conceptual references (such as no-thing, or unchanging awareness, or god, or buddha-mind, or whatever) we imply that it has some way to conceptualize itself. Simply by speaking of it, we distort. It cannot have a thought for itself, of itself, or know itself in any way. It cannot know itself in terms of not being able to know itself. One must laugh, because keeping silent about this doesn't make it any clearer than talking about it. It is not like you sit in meditation silently and become more and more clear about this - but then you talk and it gets distorted. Not at all. Being silent doesn't do anything, talking doesn't do anything. Smiles, - Dan - Yes -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
