Nisargadatta on Death, Suffering and Rebirth

[Guest guest]

" The memory of the past unfulfilled

desires traps energy, which manifests itself as a person. When its

charge gets exhausted, the person dies. Unfulfilled desires are carried over

into the next birth. Self-identification with body creates ever-fresh desires

and there is no end to them unless this mechanism of bondage is clearly seen. It

is clarity that is liberating, for you cannot abandon desire unless its causes

and effects are clearly seen. I do not say that the same person is reborn. It

dies, and dies for good. But its memories remain and their desires and fears.

They supply the energy for a new person. " --p. 381 of /I Am That/ (1984)

 

Stanley Sobottka cited this passage above, at OAStudyGroup

 

Just thought I'd share, since it fits the current topic. This explanation seems

supportive of AC's notion of getting to the root of suffering, BTW.

 

 

Smiles,

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:57 PM

Nisargadatta on Death, Suffering and Rebirth

 

 

 

" The memory of the past unfulfilled

desires traps energy, which manifests itself as a person. When its

charge gets exhausted, the person dies. Unfulfilled desires are carried over

into the next birth. Self-identification with body creates ever-fresh

desires and there is no end to them unless this mechanism of bondage is

clearly seen. It is clarity that is liberating, for you cannot abandon

desire unless its causes and effects are clearly seen. I do not say that the

same person is reborn. It dies, and dies for good. But its memories remain

and their desires and fears. They supply the energy for a new person. " --p.

381 of /I Am That/ (1984)

==

 

What i dont get in this is: what this " new person " that is born has to do

with the present person that desires?

-geo-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010

Tested on: 23/2/2010 20:06:56

avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.

 

 

 

---

avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010

Tested on: 23/2/2010 20:21:06

avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.

http://www.avast.com

[Guest guest]

 

I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam Trungpa ?) was asked, "What is it that is reborn?" I believe his simple singular reponse was "Neuroses!" My take is that unresolved energy patterns become (or takes on the particular "form") that is "one's" so-called "next birth". "Birth" to me means to "take form" as in "a wave is born" and a wave "dies" (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even before the body dies.

 

Michael

 

< "The memory of the past unfulfilled< desires traps energy, which manifests itself as a person. When its< charge gets exhausted, the person dies. Unfulfilled desires are carried over into the next birth. Self-identification with body creates ever-fresh desires and there is no end to them unless this mechanism of bondage is < clearly seen. It is clarity that is liberating, for you cannot abandon desire unless its causes and effects are clearly seen. I do not say that the same person is reborn. It dies, and dies for good. But its memories remain < and their desires and fears. They supply the energy for a new person."--p. 381 of /I Am That/ (1984)< Stanley Sobottka cited this passage above, at OAStudyGroup< Just thought I'd share, since it fits the current topic. This explanation seems supportive of AC's notion of getting to the root of suffering, BTW.< Smiles,< Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

>

>

> I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam Trungpa ?)

was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple singular reponse

was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy patterns become (or takes on

the particular " form " ) that is " one's " so-called " next birth " . " Birth " to me

means to " take form " as in " a wave is born " and a wave " dies " (= cessation of

form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this birthing/deathing

(forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from moment to moment as

moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even before the body dies.

>

> Michael

 

Hi Michael -

 

Yes.

 

The body is an imaginary unit.

 

It actually is in continual flux.

 

What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of

ongoing unity?

 

One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. "

 

Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view. And

it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic life,

including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he was

infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're incarnating

as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s>

 

Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as you

suggest.

 

And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " - so

I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with it.

 

Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ...

 

So what?

 

It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no actual

existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation.

 

So what?

 

It tends to get exaggerated by human thinking processes and states of

fear/anxiety so that identity can want to promote its extended survival through

things like greed, deceit, harm of self and others, and war.

 

So what?

 

One observes this movement momentarily, and understands that there is no

volition involved, so labeling it negatively seems beside the point.

 

It simply is what is happening here, now, as observed directly.

 

And, clear observation of this shows what it is and what it is not.

 

It is a dynamic involved in fabricating an imagined reality around a

conceptualization of continuity that results from " biological programming "

translated into conceptuality.

 

It is not ever an actual existence or thing.

 

And thus, with a moment's clarity on this issue - one rests.

 

One is free, and life as is, is freedom.

 

Life unfolds as it is.

 

As freedom.

 

As it is.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam Trungpa

?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple singular

reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy patterns become (or

takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's " so-called " next birth " . " Birth "

to me means to " take form " as in " a wave is born " and a wave " dies " (= cessation

of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this birthing/deathing

(forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from moment to moment as

moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even before the body dies.

> >

> > Michael

>

> Hi Michael -

>

> Yes.

>

> The body is an imaginary unit.

>

> It actually is in continual flux.

>

> What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of

ongoing unity?

>

> One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. "

>

> Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view. And

it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic life,

including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he was

infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're incarnating

as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s>

>

> Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as

you suggest.

>

> And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " -

so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with it.

>

> Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ...

>

> So what?

>

> It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no

actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation.

>

> So what?

>

> It tends to get exaggerated by human thinking processes and states of

fear/anxiety so that identity can want to promote its extended survival through

things like greed, deceit, harm of self and others, and war.

>

> So what?

>

> One observes this movement momentarily, and understands that there is no

volition involved, so labeling it negatively seems beside the point.

>

> It simply is what is happening here, now, as observed directly.

>

> And, clear observation of this shows what it is and what it is not.

>

> It is a dynamic involved in fabricating an imagined reality around a

conceptualization of continuity that results from " biological programming "

translated into conceptuality.

>

> It is not ever an actual existence or thing.

>

> And thus, with a moment's clarity on this issue - one rests.

>

> One is free, and life as is, is freedom.

>

> Life unfolds as it is.

>

> As freedom.

>

> As it is.

>

> - D -

>

 

 

Lol. All this deconstruction going on when in fact, life is passing us by

quicker than any *I* can conceive.

 

Enjoy it my friends, I guarantee you only nothing fades quicker and lasts

forever.

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam

Trungpa ?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple

singular reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy patterns

become (or takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's " so-called " next

birth " . " Birth " to me means to " take form " as in " a wave is born " and a wave

" dies " (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this

birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from

moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even

before the body dies.

> > >

> > > Michael

> >

> > Hi Michael -

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> > The body is an imaginary unit.

> >

> > It actually is in continual flux.

> >

> > What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of

ongoing unity?

> >

> > One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. "

> >

> > Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view.

And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic

life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he

was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're

incarnating as a neurosis.

> > Probably, you're right <s>

>

> Fwiw, " biological tendencies toward survival " doesn't necessarily work that

well here.

>

> It suggests that one is this body, and is dictated by these tendencies.

 

D: The bodily life is apparent as human being.

 

Or, are you saying there is a body having a life that

exists separately from who you are?

 

> It plays into the " hardwired " notion as well, which I've never much cared for.

 

D: Do you have a choice about how to breathe? If your eyelids open, do they

have a choice about responding to bright sunlight?

 

> But, label as ya will.

 

D: Okay, thanks, I will. All words are labels.

 

> From here, " neuroses " points to the 'psychological self', which makes more

sense as something to take a look at.

 

D: Do you think there is some kind of " psyche " that has a separate existence

from " the body " ?

 

> In any case, the above quote from Trungpa (if in fact it was him) is referring

to " reincarnation " following physical death, if I'm not mistaken -- for which

there is no indication at all.

 

D: Well, the discussion was about incarnation moment to moment.

 

Life after life is basically the same as moment after moment.

 

And with no " before " or " after " - such questions

are moot.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam

Trungpa ?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple

singular reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy patterns

become (or takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's " so-called " next

birth " . " Birth " to me means to " take form " as in " a wave is born " and a wave

" dies " (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this

birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from

moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even

before the body dies.

> > >

> > > Michael

> >

> > Hi Michael -

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> > The body is an imaginary unit.

> >

> > It actually is in continual flux.

> >

> > What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of

ongoing unity?

> >

> > One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. "

> >

> > Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view.

And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic

life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he

was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're

incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s>

> >

> > Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as

you suggest.

> >

> > And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " -

so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with it.

> >

> > Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ...

> >

> > So what?

> >

> > It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no

actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation.

> >

> > So what?

> >

> > It tends to get exaggerated by human thinking processes and states of

fear/anxiety so that identity can want to promote its extended survival through

things like greed, deceit, harm of self and others, and war.

> >

> > So what?

> >

> > One observes this movement momentarily, and understands that there is no

volition involved, so labeling it negatively seems beside the point.

> >

> > It simply is what is happening here, now, as observed directly.

> >

> > And, clear observation of this shows what it is and what it is not.

> >

> > It is a dynamic involved in fabricating an imagined reality around a

conceptualization of continuity that results from " biological programming "

translated into conceptuality.

> >

> > It is not ever an actual existence or thing.

> >

> > And thus, with a moment's clarity on this issue - one rests.

> >

> > One is free, and life as is, is freedom.

> >

> > Life unfolds as it is.

> >

> > As freedom.

> >

> > As it is.

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

>

> Lol. All this deconstruction going on when in fact, life is passing us by

quicker than any *I* can conceive.

 

D: I'm not deconstructing anything. Although, apparently, that's how it seems

to you.

 

> Enjoy it my friends, I guarantee you only nothing fades quicker and lasts

forever.

 

D: Your guarantee won't get me even a cup of coffee.

 

Excuse me if I don't rely on it.

 

Life fades compared with what?

 

Lasts forever ... I'm clueless what you're talking about or

what " forever " even represents to you.

 

How long is a moment?

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:29 PM

Re:Nisargadatta on Death, Suffering and Rebirth

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

>

>

> I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam

> Trungpa ?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple

> singular reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy

> patterns become (or takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's "

> so-called " next birth " . " Birth " to me means to " take form " as in " a wave

> is born " and a wave " dies " (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to

> me that this birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always

> already happening from moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now

> this, and now this) even before the body dies.

>

> Michael

 

Hi Michael -

 

Yes.

 

The body is an imaginary unit.

 

It actually is in continual flux.

 

What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of

ongoing unity?

 

One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. "

-dan-

 

What is imaginary about the body is assuming that it is not changing

physically, the cells.

But what defines a body are the sensorial inputs. So I ask what is imaginary

about feeling pain

in the toes? Feeling pain as I hit a finger with a hammer? It is ongoing for

tomorrow I will feel the

same pain and next year again... if I don't learn to hammer correctly. A

body is not imaginary.

What is is the idea that it is MY body (personally), and mainly to be

identified with it to the point

of believing I AM it.

 

So " biological tendencies toward survival. " keep the body relatively healthy

in an ongoing manner

and they are necessary. It is when there is an attachment to those

tendencies as " ME " that delusion is.

-geo-

 

 

 

 

Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view.

And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a

neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without

telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume

that you're incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s>

 

Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as

you suggest.

 

And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " -

so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with

it.

 

Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ...

 

So what?

 

It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no

actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation.

-dan-

 

The body has no actual existence? Or the body as some independent entity as

ME?

A baby cries to feed or when it is cold or too warm. The baby is thinking up

his body as soon as it is born?

Nah....the body is already what it is: a body that feels and has needs.

There is a syndrome where babies don't

have sensations, they cant feel pain..... they die. The body dies!

-geo-

 

 

 

 

 

So what?

 

It tends to get exaggerated by human thinking processes and states of

fear/anxiety so that identity can want to promote its extended survival

through things like greed, deceit, harm of self and others, and war.

 

So what?

 

One observes this movement momentarily, and understands that there is no

volition involved, so labeling it negatively seems beside the point.

 

It simply is what is happening here, now, as observed directly.

 

And, clear observation of this shows what it is and what it is not.

 

It is a dynamic involved in fabricating an imagined reality around a

conceptualization of continuity that results from " biological programming "

translated into conceptuality.

 

It is not ever an actual existence or thing.

 

And thus, with a moment's clarity on this issue - one rests.

 

One is free, and life as is, is freedom.

 

Life unfolds as it is.

 

As freedom.

 

As it is.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I seem to recall that a well-known Tibetan teacher (perhaps Chogyam

Trungpa ?) was asked, " What is it that is reborn? " I believe his simple

singular reponse was " Neuroses! " My take is that unresolved energy patterns

become (or takes on the particular " form " ) that is " one's " so-called " next

birth " . " Birth " to me means to " take form " as in " a wave is born " and a wave

" dies " (= cessation of form, movement, etc). Seems to me that this

birthing/deathing (forming/unforming) is what is always already happening from

moment to moment as moments of NOW (this, and now this, and now this) even

before the body dies.

> > > >

> > > > Michael

> > >

> > > Hi Michael -

> > >

> > > Yes.

> > >

> > > The body is an imaginary unit.

> > >

> > > It actually is in continual flux.

> > >

> > > What is giving " body/mind/feeling/thinking/reacting/perceiving " a sense of

ongoing unity?

> > >

> > > One could give this a name like: " biological tendencies toward survival. "

> > >

> > > Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view.

And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic

life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he

was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're

incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s>

> > >

> > > Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just

as you suggest.

> > >

> > > And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units "

- so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with

it.

> > >

> > > Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ...

> > >

> > > So what?

> > >

> > > It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no

actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation.

> > >

> > > So what?

> > >

> > > It tends to get exaggerated by human thinking processes and states of

fear/anxiety so that identity can want to promote its extended survival through

things like greed, deceit, harm of self and others, and war.

> > >

> > > So what?

> > >

> > > One observes this movement momentarily, and understands that there is no

volition involved, so labeling it negatively seems beside the point.

> > >

> > > It simply is what is happening here, now, as observed directly.

> > >

> > > And, clear observation of this shows what it is and what it is not.

> > >

> > > It is a dynamic involved in fabricating an imagined reality around a

conceptualization of continuity that results from " biological programming "

translated into conceptuality.

> > >

> > > It is not ever an actual existence or thing.

> > >

> > > And thus, with a moment's clarity on this issue - one rests.

> > >

> > > One is free, and life as is, is freedom.

> > >

> > > Life unfolds as it is.

> > >

> > > As freedom.

> > >

> > > As it is.

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> >

> >

> > Lol. All this deconstruction going on when in fact, life is

> passing us by quicker than any *I* can conceive.

>

> D: I'm not deconstructing anything. Although, apparently, that's > how it

seems to you.

 

Not to mention, how is " life passing us by? "

 

" Posting on a message board " is just as much " life " as " not posting on a message

board " .

[Guest guest]

The body is an imaginary unit.

-dan-The body has no actual existence? Or the body as some independent

entity as ME? A baby cries to feed or when it is cold or too warm. The

baby is imagining his body as soon as it is born?Nah....the body is already what it is: a body that feels and has needs. There is a syndrome where babies don't have sensations, they cant feel

pain..... they die. The body dies!-geo-

[Guest guest]

Labeling these tendencies as "neurosis" seems a derogatory point of view. And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume that you're incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s>Anway, this "incarnation" process is observed directly, momentarily, just as you suggest.And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all "biological units" - so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with it.Yes, it tends to "fabricate an identity" ...So what?It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation.-dan-

Are you saying that all "biological units" tend to "fabricate an identity" around

an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting

and fragmentation? Dogs, cats, cows - as "biological units" - have such a self-being?

-geo-

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

 

> G: What is imaginary about the body is assuming that it is not changing

> physically, the cells.

> But what defines a body are the sensorial inputs.

 

Hi Geo -

 

I would say that body is defined conceptually, cognitively. There is nothing

actual to input sensation into, until sensations form as a cognitively

recognizable body feeling. But still, this is sensing, is sensation.

 

Sensation is used to build up an idea that there is something sensation is

" input " to. Thought retains an image of something that sensation is put into.

But thought is sensed, is a form of sensing.

 

Indeed, the body/mind system, its perceived environment, is the sensing. The

objects formed are cognized aspects of sensing. The cognitions are sensed.

 

So, the body is defined according to whatever thought-form is pictured of a body

being defined - although the thought-form is sensed, and there is no getting

from sensation to something else, that exists outside of sensing.

 

>G: So I ask what is imaginary

> about feeling pain

> in the toes? Feeling pain as I hit a finger with a hammer? It is ongoing for

> tomorrow I will feel the

> same pain and next year again... if I don't learn to hammer correctly. A

> body is not imaginary.

 

In Geo's thought, the body is not imaginary. What is, or isn't imaginary,

depends on how thought defines what is actual. So, the term " imaginary " has no

set or absolute meaning - you define it in contrast with what you define as

" real. " And the contrast between real and imaginary can't be more real than the

thought-form that provides the contrast.

 

So, what is it that thought can't grasp? You can't fully or truly answer this

in words, because words are formulated by/through thought. While sometimes it

might be useful to refer to this as " nothing " (because it doesn't show up as a

particular thought-form), I might call it " energy/awareness " or

" energy/awareness field " -- while acknowledging such terms are indications of

what thought can't grasp, and yet what thought is never outside of.

 

One is aware beyond the thought-form arising/dissolving.

 

Because one is aware beyond the thought-form, one can discuss thought and its

limits, or can talk about " nothing " ( " no-thing " ).

 

Still, one can't say in any meaningful way what this is, because words aren't

independent of thought or beyond thought. One can indicate, one can detect

resonance through words - or not. That is all. One can't convey or give what

this is.

 

When you have the thought/feeling arising: " hammer struck. pain is felt. this

pain is real. " The reality of that interpretation is as real as the

thought/feeling arising.

 

And what is thought in the instant?

 

It is simply energy movement.

 

And what is sensing as this moment?

 

Energy movement.

 

Not " energy movement " as defined by thought - the actual energy movement, which

can't be described, which involves no separation.

 

And this is the actuality of " body " - constant movement of energy. Including

thought, and the sense of reality being imparted by the sensations occurring and

as sensing/thought-forms ... " now " " now " " now " --

 

and the sensings are energy movement.

 

the energy movement is aware.

 

trying to put this into words will never be done accurately, because it is

beyond thought's grasp and formulation.

 

> What is is the idea that it is MY body (personally), and mainly to be

> identified with it to the point

> of believing I AM it.

 

Well, beliefs aren't developed independently from " body " - it is the same

energy/sensing/thought field. So, you could just as well say that " I am " arises

from " body " as vice versa.

 

Seems to me that " body/feeling " is a more primary thought-form than even " I am "

- there is more thought-differentiation involved in being able to hold the

thought-form " I am " in contrast with " body-feeling. "

 

The " body/feeling " that is sensed becomes " my body " as thought forms complexify

and that thought can be maintained as " my body feeling " and not just

" body-feeling " or " sensing happening " -

 

" Identification " is only meaningful as long as one assumes " someone to identify

or disidentify. "

 

As " energy-field-being-aware " there is no identification or disidentification

that is relevant to discuss. Just is.

 

> So " biological tendencies toward survival. " keep the body relatively healthy

> in an ongoing manner

> and they are necessary.

 

Yes.

 

It's just that the impression of the ongoing body is imagined (imaged, formed).

All forms continuing over time are imagined, all imaginings involve form.

 

And yes, to keep an intact body-sense over time, biological tendencies toward

survival are involved.

 

They are " patterned in " to the " body patternings " ...

 

> It is when there is an attachment to those

> tendencies as " ME " that delusion is.

 

Delusion is also an imagined category of thought.

 

One living as the totality energy/awareness field understands no fragmentation

as ever being the case, and delusion is not a concern.

 

Delusion is conceptually defined in contrast with non-delusion or actuality, in

terms of thought-form only.

 

What actually is, involves no delusion, because there is no separately existing

being interpreting it, which could be delusional vs. accurate.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> The body is an imaginary unit.

> -dan-

>

>G: The body has no actual existence?

 

D: That's not what was being said.

 

G: Or the body as some independent

> entity as ME?

 

D: Just the body as a definable separable entity. Not necessarily

even as ME.

 

G: A baby cries to feed or when it is cold or too warm. The

> baby is imagining his body as soon as it is born?

 

D: Yes - only the baby isn't doing it. The baby is the

doing of it.

 

There are basic feeling/sensings associated

to form " body feeling. " There are basic sensory

coordinatings to allow " instinctive crying " to happen.

 

>G: Nah....the body is already what it is: a body that feels and has needs.

 

D: You can leave it at that, or you can " see " more depth -

the energy-field-awareness that is " body-ing " that is

" baby-ing " ...

 

>G: There is a syndrome where babies don't have sensations, they cant feel

> pain..... they die. The body dies!

 

D: You aren't accounting that " baby not having sensation " is

an observation of someone, is a thought-form being maintained

in relation to an observation.

 

" Baby not feeling, baby dying " is a sensing of an observer.

 

For some reason you're not including that - and you're implying

that there's a separately existing baby-thing out there that

has a syndrome and dies.

 

Nothing has any separately of-its-own existence anywhere

at any time.

 

The field may seem to fragment - as if. As if there were

separately existing observers, each with their point of view.

As if there were solid, factual things that existed independently

from observation - like a baby-thing existing on its own,

going through an objectifiable syndrome and dying - regardless

of any awareness or sensing of it.

 

The actuality though is no separately existing baby-thing,

and what one calls " baby existing " " baby having syndrome "

" baby dying " are sensings, are thought-formings, all included

in/as/through the energy-movement field, which is not divided

or divisible.

 

So, baby dying, tree growing, star going nova, bird flying,

events ten million years ago, events ten million years in the

future, events on Alpha Centauri - undivided energy/awareness/

field.

 

Understood instantly, no time involved - the energy itself

is the knowing/being - and is unknown to thought.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

> As " energy-field-being-aware " there is no identification or

> disidentification that is relevant to discuss. Just is.

 

I kinda like " just -ing " .

 

" Just is " could give an impression that " something is " , continuously.

[Guest guest]

Enjoying the discussion...

 

Awareness discussing/'learning' the difference between true and false, between

conceptual and actual.

 

IMV, it's particularly helpful for awareness to realize that it is not a mental

image (or series of mental images) from an " outside observer's " (really, it's

own) perspective.

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > The body is an imaginary unit.

> > -dan-

> >

> >G: The body has no actual existence?

>

> D: That's not what was being said.

>

> G: Or the body as some independent

> > entity as ME?

>

> D: Just the body as a definable separable entity. Not necessarily

> even as ME.

>

> G: A baby cries to feed or when it is cold or too warm. The

> > baby is imagining his body as soon as it is born?

>

> D: Yes - only the baby isn't doing it. The baby is the

> doing of it.

>

> There are basic feeling/sensings associated

> to form " body feeling. " There are basic sensory

> coordinatings to allow " instinctive crying " to happen.

>

> >G: Nah....the body is already what it is: a body that feels and has needs.

>

> D: You can leave it at that, or you can " see " more depth -

> the energy-field-awareness that is " body-ing " that is

> " baby-ing " ...

>

> >G: There is a syndrome where babies don't have sensations, they cant feel

> > pain..... they die. The body dies!

>

> D: You aren't accounting that " baby not having sensation " is

> an observation of someone, is a thought-form being maintained

> in relation to an observation.

>

> " Baby not feeling, baby dying " is a sensing of an observer.

>

> For some reason you're not including that - and you're implying

> that there's a separately existing baby-thing out there that

> has a syndrome and dies.

>

> Nothing has any separately of-its-own existence anywhere

> at any time.

>

> The field may seem to fragment - as if. As if there were

> separately existing observers, each with their point of view.

> As if there were solid, factual things that existed independently

> from observation - like a baby-thing existing on its own,

> going through an objectifiable syndrome and dying - regardless

> of any awareness or sensing of it.

>

> The actuality though is no separately existing baby-thing,

> and what one calls " baby existing " " baby having syndrome "

> " baby dying " are sensings, are thought-formings, all included

> in/as/through the energy-movement field, which is not divided

> or divisible.

>

> So, baby dying, tree growing, star going nova, bird flying,

> events ten million years ago, events ten million years in the

> future, events on Alpha Centauri - undivided energy/awareness/

> field.

>

> Understood instantly, no time involved - the energy itself

> is the knowing/being - and is unknown to thought.

>

> - Dan -

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Labeling these tendencies as " neurosis " seems a derogatory point of view.

> And it's ironic, because Chogyam Trungpa lived what could be called a

> neurotic life, including binge drinking and giving people AIDS without

> telling them he was infected. So maybe if your life is neurotic, you assume

> that you're incarnating as a neurosis. Probably, you're right <s>

>

> Anway, this " incarnation " process is observed directly, momentarily, just as

> you suggest.

>

> And there is nothing wrong with it. It happens for all " biological units " -

> so I wouldn't label it in a derogatory way, as if something were wrong with

> it.

>

> Yes, it tends to " fabricate an identity " ...

>

> So what?

>

> It tends to attempt to center awareness around an self-being that has no

> actual existence, which results in perceptual splitting and fragmentation.

> -dan-

>

> Are you saying that all " biological units " tend to " fabricate an identity "

around

> an self-being that has no actual existence, which results in perceptual

splitting

> and fragmentation? Dogs, cats, cows - as " biological units " - have such a

self-being?

 

Well, first of all, let's be clear that this is my formulation - I am sharing a

thought-configuration through words.

 

I'm not pretending that the words I'm sharing contain some kind of ultimate

truth about what a cow is or isn't.

 

Also, I'm saying there is no really existing separable biological unit anywhere

- it's a convention of speech that may be helpful to communicate - but that is

all.

 

Given all that - yes, it makes sense to me that any biologically definable

organic unit that survives over time and fends for its survival, involves what

could be called a " form charge " - an energy charge that forms as an apparent

being. The sensing of continuity as a unit that needs to ingest and excrete

requires a sensing of self - not necessarily at a verbal, intellectual level.

Because there is a feeling level that doesn't require brain activity - it is

basic sensing of need, as, for example, need to eat, or need to excrete, or need

for warmth, or need for defense.

 

It is what humans call " instinctual " or " automatic activity " because higher

brain functions aren't involved.

 

But humans have it too - and one senses this way, and one understands that

" biological units " (fictional though they may be) have a lot in common with each

other. And " survival instincts and tendencies " is an aspect of this

commonality, as is " felt-sense of continuing. "

 

This sensing of continuity occurs at the cellular level, as the brain is a

communication among millions of cells - the brain develops it into fantastic

complexity, but the brain evolved from cells in communion, and the cells pool

their information, including information about what is felt as continuing form.

So a very complex feeling-sensing-thinking formation develops as the human

being, from the " building block " of the cell, the basic " unit " of ingesting and

excreting and continuing.

 

Very likely a reader will receive these words from me skeptically, doubt that I

have any clue what occurs on a cellular level, say this is a made-up story - and

I'm okay with that. All our stories are made up anyway. But this is my sensing

of it - no more claim is being made than that.

 

You mention dogs. Dogs seem to me to be able to feel rejected or welcomed,

develop a sense of loyalty, make eye contact - this is why humans like them as

pets - because their sense of self seems understandable to a human, and a

relationship can form that is straightforward and clear. I've known people

whose relationship with their pet dog was extremely emotionally important to

them, and more straightforward and less conflict than with people in their

lives. Known a few people with cats who relate like this, too.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > As " energy-field-being-aware " there is no identification or

> > disidentification that is relevant to discuss. Just is.

>

> I kinda like " just -ing " .

>

> " Just is " could give an impression that " something is " , continuously.

 

ing-ing

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > As " energy-field-being-aware " there is no identification or

> > > disidentification that is relevant to discuss. Just is.

> >

> > I kinda like " just -ing " .

> >

> > " Just is " could give an impression that " something is " , continuously.

>

> ing-ing

>

 

Ding ding...

 

Ding-a-ling ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

> So, what is it that thought can't grasp? You can't fully or truly

> answer this in words, because words are formulated by/through thought. While

sometimes it might be useful to refer to this as " nothing " (because it doesn't

show up as a particular thought-form), I might call it " energy/awareness " or

" energy/awareness field " -- while acknowledging such terms are indications of

what thought can't grasp, > and yet what thought is never outside of.

>

> One is aware beyond the thought-form arising/dissolving.

 

I found it useful to get at this through exploring attachment to a particular

thought and then asking, " Who am I without that thought? " (Byron Katie)

 

Like a peering under the carpet. That's how I fell apart. Kept looking.

 

> What actually is, involves no delusion, because there is no

> separately existing being interpreting it, which could be delusional > vs.

accurate.

 

Is that why your words contain little energy resonance for me? This question is

awkward. I am accustomed to " reading " people and connecting with something. I

reach out for that in you, and feels like thin air. Have I been connecting with

their fears? My fears to theirs?

 

Or is the nothing I see in you a reflection of the nothing in (of course not in)

me? This me-you is not accurate. Doing the best I can with words and hoping

you can intuit. My mind tells me Dan doesn't intuit because I don't feel

anything from him. Can you explain that?

 

This is this organism's habitual way of interfacing with what appears as other,

and I don't get " other " from you. I find that mightily interesting.

 

Julie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " julesmiel " <julesmiel wrote:

> This is this organism's habitual way of interfacing with what appears > as

other, and I don't get " other " from you. I find that mightily

> interesting.

 

Actually, this is the same experience I've had with self-inquiry. (Yeah, the I

experiencing. Words!) I poke and look. Eventually, I started finding nothing.

Like I tried to find something to bounce back from, and nothing.

 

Same with you. Not getting the bounceback. Nothing there!

 

Julie

[Guest guest]

> The body is an imaginary unit.

> -dan-

>

>G: The body has no actual existence?

 

D: That's not what was being said.

 

G: Or the body as some independent

> entity as ME?

 

D: Just the body as a definable separable entity. Not necessarily

even as ME.

 

G: A baby cries to feed or when it is cold or too warm. The

> baby is imagining his body as soon as it is born?

 

D: Yes - only the baby isn't doing it. The baby is the

doing of it.

 

geo: You mean the body is " imagined " in/as awareness? Like anything

manifested? I agree with that. You are calling the waves, the patterns...

as imagings. So your statement " the body is an imaginary unit " is just

confirming the fact that everything and anything are no more then such

patterns.

[Guest guest]

Sleeping baby in my imaginary arms.

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

> D: Yes - only the baby isn't doing it. The baby is the

> doing of it.

 

I'm doing it. And then it's so okay. I can do suffering. And it's not even

suffering. Is it an error to identify with the everything, to feel this love?

 

Dan, do you love us all with an unbelievably squirrelly and ridiculous and

profound love? Did you do that first and then normalize because it's just more

efficient when it flows quietly like water?

 

I could have loved this love all along, only I became really convinced that it

was inappropriate. The I was born. It happens to every child. It sounds

mushy, but it's the living reality this I experiences with two imaginary

children.

 

They would not get this language here, and I'm more accustomed to their

language, which is beyond the spoken. They generally trust the union and sniff

bs at the separation. (That dichotomy is inaccurate, but the usual word thing

going on.)

 

Julie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " julesmiel " <julesmiel wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > So, what is it that thought can't grasp? You can't fully or truly

> > answer this in words, because words are formulated by/through thought. While

sometimes it might be useful to refer to this as " nothing " (because it doesn't

show up as a particular thought-form), I might call it " energy/awareness " or

" energy/awareness field " -- while acknowledging such terms are indications of

what thought can't grasp, > and yet what thought is never outside of.

> >

> > One is aware beyond the thought-form arising/dissolving.

>

> I found it useful to get at this through exploring attachment to a particular

thought and then asking, " Who am I without that thought? " (Byron Katie)

>

> Like a peering under the carpet. That's how I fell apart. Kept looking.

>

> > What actually is, involves no delusion, because there is no

> > separately existing being interpreting it, which could be delusional > vs.

accurate.

>

> Is that why your words contain little energy resonance for me? This question

is awkward. I am accustomed to " reading " people and connecting with something.

I reach out for that in you, and feels like thin air. Have I been connecting

with their fears? My fears to theirs?

 

D: That's an interesting question, Julie. I appreciate that -

and thanks for sharing your response.

 

> Or is the nothing I see in you a reflection of the nothing in (of course not

in) me? This me-you is not accurate. Doing the best I can with words and

hoping you can intuit. My mind tells me Dan doesn't intuit because I don't feel

anything from him. Can you explain that?

 

D: No.

 

> This is this organism's habitual way of interfacing with what appears as

other, and I don't get " other " from you. I find that mightily interesting.

 

D: Cool! You don't seem to be asking anything of me that is

answerable - it sounds more like the kind of question that

is an opening, rather than wanting a verbalizable answer.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " julesmiel " <julesmiel wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " julesmiel " <julesmiel@> wrote:

> > This is this organism's habitual way of interfacing with what appears > as

other, and I don't get " other " from you. I find that mightily

> > interesting.

>

> Actually, this is the same experience I've had with self-inquiry. (Yeah, the

I experiencing. Words!) I poke and look. Eventually, I started finding

nothing. Like I tried to find something to bounce back from, and nothing.

>

> Same with you. Not getting the bounceback. Nothing there!

>

> Julie

 

Well, I'm sure you'll run across lots of words posted in various places,

including here, about the nothing that is everything that is you that has no

" you. "

 

One limitation of words is that they are visualised, can be repeated in the

brain as thought, and have form.

 

So, words give one " something. "

 

To understand that one is this nothing, and has been, and it could not be

otherwise - is not a verbally based understanding.

 

Although it can be expressed verbally, that expression can be misleading. It

makes it seem like there is a thought-anchoring of it. In fact, the expression

has to be misleading unless it is heard with understanding. And if it is heard

with understanding, there is already understanding an no reliance on any

particular expression! A pair o' ducks.

 

One lives in a world of recognizable objects, people, events. One interacts and

responds, memory operates, communication happens.

 

Does nothing have any volition in any of this?

 

Are appearances brought forth with thought about it, with a plan, with an

outcome in mind?

 

Or does something/nothing simply -ing, as some things, no-thing, even as

thoughts that arise as if planning, as if strategizing ...

 

What can be said about ing-ing?

 

Still, it's fun, speaking as ripples in the ever-rippling nothing.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

> Still, it's fun, speaking as ripples in the ever-rippling nothing.

 

You *are* water, and I am so bold as to say you're something. No bounceback,

but water. Nice.

 

Thanks,

Julie