Guest guest Report post Posted March 28, 2010 "the thing is the regulars on this list are such a seasoned crowd that they don't want to hear excessive advaita preaching. the regulars especially dan can give a satsang with the best of them. the problem is that what do gurus, or the "virtual gurus" do when they get together? certainly not preach advaita...it would be like trying to sell ice to the eskimos." The reason I have been nosing around this list is that truth, as I experience it, occasionally seems to be described by some of these teachings. I have been wondering if trying to sort of connect the descriptions to what seems true already would give a greater perspective. But it seems, at this point, that descriptions have overtaken meaning here. Maybe not in all cases. I have no idea how these words are played out in any of your lives. I am ultimately only interested in how and if that happens, and I'm not sure if trying to see a connection between acts and words will ever bring any clarity. I'm thinking that the time and effort that goes into making sure everyone agrees on terms is actually limiting the usefulness of language completely. Jargon is so helpful when used to avoid uneasy self-agreement. Ultimately, it seems to lead to a well-polished emptiness. And why gild that lily? What i really want is to go out and explore the desert with Don Juan:) A teaching within experience instead of in exclusion of experience. But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by "affectionate attention" ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno. Gloria Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 28, 2010 exclusion of experience. > > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by " affectionate attention " ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno. > > Gloria Sure, here it is: Attention seems irresistibly attracted to what we love or hate. To gaze on what we love is Heaven, to gaze on what we hate is Hell. So, wouldn't it be wise to regard everything with a loving gaze. Pete > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 28, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson wrote: > > " the thing is the regulars on this list are such a seasoned crowd that they don't want to hear excessive advaita preaching. the regulars especially dan can give a satsang with the best of them. the problem is that what do gurus, or the " virtual gurus " do when they get together? certainly not preach advaita...it would be like trying to sell ice to the eskimos. " > > > The reason I have been nosing around this list is that truth, as I experience it, occasionally seems to be described by some of these teachings. I have been wondering if trying to sort of connect the descriptions to what seems true already would give a greater perspective. But it seems, at this point, that descriptions have overtaken meaning here. Maybe not in all cases. I have no idea how these words are played out in any of your lives. I am ultimately only interested in how and if that happens, and I'm not sure if trying to see a connection between acts and words will ever bring any clarity. I'm thinking that the time and effort that goes into making sure everyone agrees on terms is actually limiting the usefulness of language completely. Jargon is so helpful when used to avoid uneasy self-agreement. Ultimately, it seems to lead to a well-polished emptiness. And why gild that lily? > > > What i really want is to go out and explore the desert with Don Juan:) A teaching within experience instead of in exclusion of experience. > > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by " affectionate attention " ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno. > > Gloria > i thought it meant that mystics are kind. Here's the quote i was reading: " Just keep in mind the feeling 'I am', merge in it, till your mind and feeling become one. By repeated attempts you will stumble on the right balance of attention and affection and your mind will be firmly established in the thought-feeling 'I am'. Whatever you think, say, or do, this sense of immutable and affectionate being remains as the ever-present background of the mind. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:41 PM Re: affectionate attention exclusion of experience.> > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by "affectionate attention" ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno.> > GloriaSure, here it is: Attention seems irresistibly attractedto what we love or hate. To gaze on what we love is Heaven,to gaze on what we hate is Hell. So, wouldn't it be wiseto regard everything with a loving gaze.Pete>I do have a preference for certain things, but I can't seem to defend this by saying the thing I prefer is better or worse than anything else. I do prefer petting a dog to holding a spider, but I have the capacity to enjoy holding a spider, I am sure. Is this at all what you mean? If so, a loving gaze seems to be the intent to see past personal preference to experience. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 - Hur Guler Nisargadatta Sunday, March 28, 2010 5:11 PM Re: affectionate attention Nisargadatta , "Gloria Wilson" <gloriawilson wrote:>> "the thing is the regulars on this list are such a seasoned crowd that they don't want to hear excessive advaita preaching. the regulars especially dan can give a satsang with the best of them. the problem is that what do gurus, or the "virtual gurus" do when they get together? certainly not preach advaita...it would be like trying to sell ice to the eskimos."> > > The reason I have been nosing around this list is that truth, as I experience it, occasionally seems to be described by some of these teachings. I have been wondering if trying to sort of connect the descriptions to what seems true already would give a greater perspective. But it seems, at this point, that descriptions have overtaken meaning here. Maybe not in all cases. I have no idea how these words are played out in any of your lives. I am ultimately only interested in how and if that happens, and I'm not sure if trying to see a connection between acts and words will ever bring any clarity. I'm thinking that the time and effort that goes into making sure everyone agrees on terms is actually limiting the usefulness of language completely. Jargon is so helpful when used to avoid uneasy self-agreement. Ultimately, it seems to lead to a well-polished emptiness. And why gild that lily? > > > What i really want is to go out and explore the desert with Don Juan:) A teaching within experience instead of in exclusion of experience.> > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by "affectionate attention" ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno.> > Gloria>i thought it meant that mystics are kind.Here's the quote i was reading:"Just keep in mind the feeling 'I am', merge in it, till your mind and feeling become one. By repeated attempts you will stumble on the right balance of attention and affection and your mind will be firmly established in the thought-feeling 'I am'. Whatever you think, say, or do, this sense of immutable and affectionate being remains as the ever-present background of the mind." I think my problem in understanding is that I have a hard time defining "kindness" without bringing judgement into the picture. I see he also describes awareness as "lucid harmony" which somehow seems less judgemental to me: "When you follow my advice and try to keep the mind on the notion of ‘I am’ only, you become fully aware of your mind and its vagaries. Awareness being lucid harmony (‘sattwa’) in action dissolves dullness and quietens the restlessness of the mind and gently but steadily changes its very substance. This change need not be spectacular; it maybe hardly noticeable; and yet it is a deep and fundamental shift from darkness to light from inadvertence to awareness." Gloria Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > exclusion of experience. > > > > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by " affectionate attention " ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno. > > > > Gloria Pete: > Sure, here it is: Attention seems irresistibly attracted > to what we love or hate. To gaze on what we love is Heaven, > to gaze on what we hate is Hell. So, wouldn't it be wise > to regard everything with a loving gaze. I know what you mean. Yes, it would - sometimes it is all is could, jaws down, mouth halfopen, eyes curiously walking all over the face of " the other " , thought asking itself: what AM I doing in this here company? What IS this circus? " The other " on facing my apparent interest in " her/him " goes all confessive and inside out & now and then asks me " who " 's listening so carefully (if only they knew): why AM I telling you all this? I dunno why I am telling you all this. And she carries on and on till something makes her stop. Something ain't me for I am just regarding her with a loving gaze ) -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > exclusion of experience. > > > > > > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by " affectionate attention " ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno. > > > > > > Gloria > > > > Pete: > > > Sure, here it is: Attention seems irresistibly attracted > > to what we love or hate. To gaze on what we love is Heaven, > > to gaze on what we hate is Hell. So, wouldn't it be wise > > to regard everything with a loving gaze. > > > > I know what you mean. Yes, it would - sometimes it is all is > could, jaws down, mouth halfopen, eyes curiously walking all > over the face of " the other " , thought asking itself: what AM > I doing in this here company? What IS this circus? > > " The other " on facing my apparent interest in " her/him " goes > all confessive and inside out & now and then asks me " who " 's > listening so carefully (if only they knew): why AM I telling > you all this? I dunno why I am telling you all this. And she > carries on and on till something makes her stop. > > Something ain't me for I am just regarding her with a loving > gaze ) > > -Lene P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, nothing seems ugly, including myself. Intellectual stuff, and opinions I can't regard with affectioned attention. If I don't agree with a thought, I get the urge to step on it (as if it were a roach. Roaches and houseflies are the only animals I don't look on with a loving gaze. My bad) ) > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > nothing seems ugly, including myself. Can you see your own 'gaze', as though standing outside yourself? :-p. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > > nothing seems ugly, including myself. > > Can you see your own 'gaze', as though standing outside yourself? :-p. > P: What a roach of a thought, you wrote! I was tempted to step on my monitor's screen, until the thought of the price of a new monitor flashed in my brain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > > > nothing seems ugly, including myself. > > > > Can you see your own 'gaze', as though standing outside yourself? :-p. > > > > P: What a roach of a thought, you wrote! I was tempted > to step on my monitor's screen, until the thought of > the price of a new monitor flashed in my brain. > Just a thought, Pete. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > > > > nothing seems ugly, including myself. > > > > > > Can you see your own 'gaze', as though standing outside yourself? :-p. > > > > > > > P: What a roach of a thought, you wrote! I was tempted > > to step on my monitor's screen, until the thought of > > the price of a new monitor flashed in my brain. > > > > Just a thought, Pete. P: A roach, is just a roach, a fly is just a fly! The world will always welcome pests as time goes by. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > > nothing seems ugly, including myself. > > Can you see your own 'gaze', as though standing outside yourself? :-p. > i think i can " imagine " it but one has to be dreaming or on drugs to split the mind like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > > > > > nothing seems ugly, including myself. > > > > > > > > Can you see your own 'gaze', as though standing outside yourself? :-p. > > > > > > > > > > P: What a roach of a thought, you wrote! I was tempted > > > to step on my monitor's screen, until the thought of > > > the price of a new monitor flashed in my brain. > > > > > > > Just a thought, Pete. > > P: A roach, is just a roach, > a fly is just a fly! > The world will always welcome pests > as time goes by. > > > It was your own thought. You were the one who read it, and it gave rise to whatever it did. Don't cry over your own thoughts, your own impressions. The alternative is, of course, to close down Internet Explorer and do something else. Hell, there's even the house circuit breaker, if it's an emergency ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > > > > > nothing seems ugly, including myself. > > > > > > > > Can you see your own 'gaze', as though standing outside yourself? :-p. > > > > > > > > > > P: What a roach of a thought, you wrote! I was tempted > > > to step on my monitor's screen, until the thought of > > > the price of a new monitor flashed in my brain. > > > > > > > Just a thought, Pete. > > P: A roach, is just a roach, > a fly is just a fly! > The world will always welcome pests > as time goes by. us cats in the Great White North.. don't think of roaches a pests. brothers and sisters hoard them for that rainy day. well actually for that sad day that the available weed has run dry. but having friends in B.C. prevents that from ever occuring. so we fortunate ones donate them to our needy bretheren. sort of a food bank donation if you will. it's the holy and loving thing to do. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 30, 2010 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Monday, March 29, 2010 12:11 PM Re: affectionate attention Nisargadatta , "Lene" <lschwabe wrote:>> > > Nisargadatta , "cerosoul" <pedsie6@> wrote:> >> > exclusion of experience.> > > > > > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by "affectionate attention" ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno.> > > > > > Gloria> > > > Pete: > > > Sure, here it is: Attention seems irresistibly attracted> > to what we love or hate. To gaze on what we love is Heaven,> > to gaze on what we hate is Hell. So, wouldn't it be wise> > to regard everything with a loving gaze.> > > > I know what you mean. Yes, it would - sometimes it is all is> could, jaws down, mouth halfopen, eyes curiously walking all> over the face of "the other", thought asking itself: what AM> I doing in this here company? What IS this circus? > > "The other" on facing my apparent interest in "her/him" goes> all confessive and inside out & now and then asks me "who"'s> listening so carefully (if only they knew): why AM I telling> you all this? I dunno why I am telling you all this. And she> carries on and on till something makes her stop.> > Something ain't me for I am just regarding her with a loving> gaze )> > -LeneP: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze,nothing seems ugly, including myself. Intellectual stuff,and opinions I can't regard with affectioned attention.If I don't agree with a thought, I get the urge to stepon it (as if it were a roach. Roaches and houseflies arethe only animals I don't look on with a loving gaze. My bad) )> See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic "affection" in Awareness itself? But it was a really nice roach song. gloria Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Monday, March 29, 2010 12:11 PM > Re: affectionate attention > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > exclusion of experience. > > > > > > > > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by " affectionate attention " ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno. > > > > > > > > Gloria > > > > > > > > Pete: > > > > > Sure, here it is: Attention seems irresistibly attracted > > > to what we love or hate. To gaze on what we love is Heaven, > > > to gaze on what we hate is Hell. So, wouldn't it be wise > > > to regard everything with a loving gaze. > > > > > > > > I know what you mean. Yes, it would - sometimes it is all is > > could, jaws down, mouth halfopen, eyes curiously walking all > > over the face of " the other " , thought asking itself: what AM > > I doing in this here company? What IS this circus? > > > > " The other " on facing my apparent interest in " her/him " goes > > all confessive and inside out & now and then asks me " who " 's > > listening so carefully (if only they knew): why AM I telling > > you all this? I dunno why I am telling you all this. And she > > carries on and on till something makes her stop. > > > > Something ain't me for I am just regarding her with a loving > > gaze ) > > > > -Lene > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > nothing seems ugly, including myself. Intellectual stuff, > and opinions I can't regard with affectioned attention. > If I don't agree with a thought, I get the urge to step > on it (as if it were a roach. Roaches and houseflies are > the only animals I don't look on with a loving gaze. My bad) ) > > > > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > But it was a really nice roach song. > > gloria D: As there's nothing intrinsic to awareness, it isn't separable from what it is being aware of. And that is the " affection. " - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, March 29, 2010 12:11 PM > > Re: affectionate attention > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > exclusion of experience. > > > > > > > > > > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by " affectionate attention " ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno. > > > > > > > > > > Gloria > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete: > > > > > > > Sure, here it is: Attention seems irresistibly attracted > > > > to what we love or hate. To gaze on what we love is Heaven, > > > > to gaze on what we hate is Hell. So, wouldn't it be wise > > > > to regard everything with a loving gaze. > > > > > > > > > > > > I know what you mean. Yes, it would - sometimes it is all is > > > could, jaws down, mouth halfopen, eyes curiously walking all > > > over the face of " the other " , thought asking itself: what AM > > > I doing in this here company? What IS this circus? > > > > > > " The other " on facing my apparent interest in " her/him " goes > > > all confessive and inside out & now and then asks me " who " 's > > > listening so carefully (if only they knew): why AM I telling > > > you all this? I dunno why I am telling you all this. And she > > > carries on and on till something makes her stop. > > > > > > Something ain't me for I am just regarding her with a loving > > > gaze ) > > > > > > -Lene > > > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > > nothing seems ugly, including myself. Intellectual stuff, > > and opinions I can't regard with affectioned attention. > > If I don't agree with a thought, I get the urge to step > > on it (as if it were a roach. Roaches and houseflies are > > the only animals I don't look on with a loving gaze. My bad) ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > > But it was a really nice roach song. > > > > gloria > > D: As there's nothing intrinsic to awareness, it isn't > separable from what it is being aware of. > > And that is the " affection. " > > - D - and that is just more of your pompous bullshit. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Monday, March 29, 2010 12:11 PM > Re: affectionate attention > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > exclusion of experience. > > > > > > > > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by " affectionate attention " ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno. > > > > > > > > Gloria > > > > > > > > Pete: > > > > > Sure, here it is: Attention seems irresistibly attracted > > > to what we love or hate. To gaze on what we love is Heaven, > > > to gaze on what we hate is Hell. So, wouldn't it be wise > > > to regard everything with a loving gaze. > > > > > > > > I know what you mean. Yes, it would - sometimes it is all is > > could, jaws down, mouth halfopen, eyes curiously walking all > > over the face of " the other " , thought asking itself: what AM > > I doing in this here company? What IS this circus? > > > > " The other " on facing my apparent interest in " her/him " goes > > all confessive and inside out & now and then asks me " who " 's > > listening so carefully (if only they knew): why AM I telling > > you all this? I dunno why I am telling you all this. And she > > carries on and on till something makes her stop. > > > > Something ain't me for I am just regarding her with a loving > > gaze ) > > > > -Lene > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > nothing seems ugly, including myself. Intellectual stuff, > and opinions I can't regard with affectioned attention. > If I don't agree with a thought, I get the urge to step > on it (as if it were a roach. Roaches and houseflies are > the only animals I don't look on with a loving gaze. My bad) ) > > > > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > But it was a really nice roach song. > > gloria > awareness is at best a reflection, a recognition of " something " ...maybe the recognition of the poor little old me. i think what's being said (affection & awareness) is that when one does meditation and watches the " i exist " recognition in the mind, very often the side effect is a very mild, sweet drip of comforting state of mind. sometimes though it's easy to get addicted to this mild happy feeling liquid to the extent that one goes around the nondual spiritual sites and write love poetry to awareness. on the extreme, one can get addicted to the shakti of the guru, the way one gets hooked on heroine and the guru becomes the only dealer in town. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > > But it was a really nice roach song. > > > > gloria > > > awareness is at best a reflection, a recognition of " something " ...maybe the recognition of the poor little old me. where have you found something existing outside of awareness? awareness is reflecting its reflection of its reflection, ad infinitum. " me " tries to claim awareness, but is never able to do so. that is why it is " poor me. " it truly is poverty. and awareness has no dependence on " me, " and is not located in a me. > i think what's being said (affection & awareness) is that when one does meditation and watches the " i exist " recognition in the mind, very often the side effect is a very mild, sweet drip of comforting state of mind. sometimes though it's easy to get addicted to this mild happy feeling liquid to the extent that one goes around the nondual spiritual sites and write love poetry to awareness. awareness doesn't have any feelings. feelings arise in awareness, through awareness, that's all. they come and go. and here is awareness: neither coming nor going nor staying in one place. > on the extreme, one can get addicted to the shakti of the guru, the way one gets hooked on heroine and the guru becomes the only dealer in town. for sure. addictions come and go, too. " me " is an addiction. but awareness can never be an addiction. this is why attempts to situate awareness in a " me " (or a brain, or a body-mind) are doomed to fail. a wonderful failure. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > > > But it was a really nice roach song. > > > > > > gloria > > > > > awareness is at best a reflection, a recognition of " something " ...maybe the recognition of the poor little old me. > > where have you found something existing outside of awareness? > > awareness is reflecting its reflection of its reflection, ad infinitum. Nonsense, Dan, Awareness is not a mirror but a product of the brain. And that product doesn't reflect itself. It never will and it never did. > > " me " tries to claim awareness, but is never able to do so. > > that is why it is " poor me. " Dan, there are two me's: The 'big' me which is subjectivity represented by awareness. The world you see is your world and not mine. Then there is the verbal 'social' me which gets revealed through its words. > > it truly is poverty. Haha, Dan is revealing so much poverty. I am already getting tears in my eyes. > > and awaareness has no dependence on " me, " and is not located in a me. To complicated, the verbal me is just a content of conscious, like all the others too. > > > i think what's being said (affection & awareness) is that when one does meditation and watches the " i exist " recognition in the mind, very often the side effect is a very mild, sweet drip of comforting state of mind. sometimes though it's easy to get addicted to this mild happy feeling liquid to the extent that one goes around the nondual spiritual sites and write love poetry to awareness. Stop thinking in such a complicated way. You are just producing bull. Remember povety. Poverty in thinking and poverty in expression. > > awareness doesn't have any feelings. feelings, same as thoughts are just a content of consciousness. > > feelings arise in awareness, through awareness, that's all. Feelings don't 'arise' IN consciousness. Consciousness in no way is a mirror or an agent IN which something is arising. Consciousness IS its content. Contents=consciousness are arising, some are called feelings and other contents=consciousness are called thoughts. > > they come and go. > > and here is awareness: neither coming nor going nor staying in one place. Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. Werner > > > on the extreme, one can get addicted to the shakti of the guru, the way one gets hooked on heroine and the guru becomes the only dealer in town. > > for sure. > > addictions come and go, too. > > " me " is an addiction. > > but awareness can never be an addiction. > > this is why attempts to situate awareness in a " me " (or a brain, or a body-mind) are doomed to fail. > > a wonderful failure. > > - d - > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > Werner There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. This is the freedom of being nothing, of being present. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > Werner > > There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. Just in case you still see consciousness as a container: Consciousness is no container. And consciounes in no way is a coherent fluidum or a coherent susbtance. Consciousness is a flow or a flux of packeges. Each package is content AND consciousness. This flux is what Nis has called the 'I am'. Werner > > This is the freedom of being nothing, of being present. > > - Dan - > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > > > > But it was a really nice roach song. > > > > > > > > gloria > > > > > > > awareness is at best a reflection, a recognition of " something " ...maybe the recognition of the poor little old me. > > > > where have you found something existing outside of awareness? > > > > awareness is reflecting its reflection of its reflection, ad infinitum. > > > Nonsense, Dan, > > Awareness is not a mirror but a product of the brain. And that product doesn't reflect itself. It never will and it never did. > > > > > > > " me " tries to claim awareness, but is never able to do so. > > > > that is why it is " poor me. " > > > Dan, there are two me's: > > The 'big' me which is subjectivity represented by awareness. The world you see is your world and not mine. > > Then there is the verbal 'social' me which gets revealed through its words. > > > > > > it truly is poverty. > > > Haha, Dan is revealing so much poverty. I am already getting tears in my eyes. > > > > > > and awaareness has no dependence on " me, " and is not located in a me. > > > To complicated, the verbal me is just a content of conscious, like all the others too. > > > > > > > i think what's being said (affection & awareness) is that when one does meditation and watches the " i exist " recognition in the mind, very often the side effect is a very mild, sweet drip of comforting state of mind. sometimes though it's easy to get addicted to this mild happy feeling liquid to the extent that one goes around the nondual spiritual sites and write love poetry to awareness. > > > Stop thinking in such a complicated way. You are just producing bull. Remember povety. Poverty in thinking and poverty in expression. > > > > > > awareness doesn't have any feelings. > > > feelings, same as thoughts are just a content of consciousness. > > > > > > feelings arise in awareness, through awareness, that's all. > > > Feelings don't 'arise' IN consciousness. Consciousness in no way is a mirror or an agent IN which something is arising. Consciousness IS its content. Contents=consciousness are arising, some are called feelings and other contents=consciousness are called thoughts. > > > > > > they come and go. > > > > and here is awareness: neither coming nor going nor staying in one place. > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > Werner > > > > > > > > on the extreme, one can get addicted to the shakti of the guru, the way one gets hooked on heroine and the guru becomes the only dealer in town. > > > > for sure. > > > > addictions come and go, too. > > > > " me " is an addiction. > > > > but awareness can never be an addiction. > > > > this is why attempts to situate awareness in a " me " (or a brain, or a body-mind) are doomed to fail. > > > > a wonderful failure. > > > > - d - > > > hi werner, not that it makes much of a difference but to be fair to dan some of those lines you responded to were mine. since i'm always in need of attention, i welcome any type of feedback including the ones mixed with dan's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > > > Werner > > > > There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. > > > Just in case you still see consciousness as a container: > > Consciousness is no container. And consciounes in no way is a coherent fluidum or a coherent susbtance. > > Consciousness is a flow or a flux of packeges. Each package is content AND consciousness. This flux is what Nis has called the 'I am'. > > Werner There isn't a container. You are trying to make the brain a container. You describe consciousness as a flux of packages. Where are you situated as you observe this flux of packages? If you are inside the flux, then you can't see the big picture of the flux, you are just one of the packages. As you are not inside the flux, you are not contained by it. You are the awareness of it. That is how you can describe it. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > > > > > But it was a really nice roach song. > > > > > > > > > > gloria > > > > > > > > > awareness is at best a reflection, a recognition of " something " ...maybe the recognition of the poor little old me. > > > > > > where have you found something existing outside of awareness? > > > > > > awareness is reflecting its reflection of its reflection, ad infinitum. > > > > > > Nonsense, Dan, > > > > Awareness is not a mirror but a product of the brain. And that product doesn't reflect itself. It never will and it never did. > > > > > > > > > > > > " me " tries to claim awareness, but is never able to do so. > > > > > > that is why it is " poor me. " > > > > > > Dan, there are two me's: > > > > The 'big' me which is subjectivity represented by awareness. The world you see is your world and not mine. > > > > Then there is the verbal 'social' me which gets revealed through its words. > > > > > > > > > > it truly is poverty. > > > > > > Haha, Dan is revealing so much poverty. I am already getting tears in my eyes. > > > > > > > > > > and awaareness has no dependence on " me, " and is not located in a me. > > > > > > To complicated, the verbal me is just a content of conscious, like all the others too. > > > > > > > > > > > i think what's being said (affection & awareness) is that when one does meditation and watches the " i exist " recognition in the mind, very often the side effect is a very mild, sweet drip of comforting state of mind. sometimes though it's easy to get addicted to this mild happy feeling liquid to the extent that one goes around the nondual spiritual sites and write love poetry to awareness. > > > > > > Stop thinking in such a complicated way. You are just producing bull. Remember povety. Poverty in thinking and poverty in expression. > > > > > > > > > > awareness doesn't have any feelings. > > > > > > feelings, same as thoughts are just a content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > feelings arise in awareness, through awareness, that's all. > > > > > > Feelings don't 'arise' IN consciousness. Consciousness in no way is a mirror or an agent IN which something is arising. Consciousness IS its content. Contents=consciousness are arising, some are called feelings and other contents=consciousness are called thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > they come and go. > > > > > > and here is awareness: neither coming nor going nor staying in one place. > > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the extreme, one can get addicted to the shakti of the guru, the way one gets hooked on heroine and the guru becomes the only dealer in town. > > > > > > for sure. > > > > > > addictions come and go, too. > > > > > > " me " is an addiction. > > > > > > but awareness can never be an addiction. > > > > > > this is why attempts to situate awareness in a " me " (or a brain, or a body-mind) are doomed to fail. > > > > > > a wonderful failure. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > hi werner, > not that it makes much of a difference but to be fair to dan some of those lines you responded to were mine. since i'm always in need of attention, i welcome any type of feedback including the ones mixed with dan's. > Hm Hur, I checked those post I replied to and they were from Dan and not from you. But If you are keen on getting your ears pinched I will thoroughly read you next posts and have a look if I stumble across passages which in my eyes justify and invite such action. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
