Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

nonduality digest for Thursday

Expand Messages
  • Melody
    Nonduality digest for Thursday s postings dated July 29, 1999 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andrew: always when universal Me in me
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 30, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Nonduality digest for Thursday's postings dated
      July 29, 1999

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Andrew:

      always when
      universal Me
      in me
      and
      me in Me
      is presently
      aware
      the human
      condition
      is freedom.


      Harsha responds:

      Beautiful Andrew.

      Upon seeing Me
      I got lost
      Now the Me
      peeks through me
      but where am I?

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Dan:
      After hearing many varied responses given to the question about ego:

      What is ego?
      1) A word that elicits at least 20 different conceptual opinions from
      people whose understanding is that their understanding is beyond concepts
      2) A word that elicits definitive clarifications of definitive clarifications
      of original ambiguous definitions
      3) Something that, apparently, those defining themselves as "nondualists"
      do not want to have, although they also want to be beyond wanting and not
      wanting
      4) Something that the average person would benefit from having more
      stability
      and balance "in" and "of" (although there are none of these average
      people here)
      5) Something which is unreal, but about which it is worth spending many
      words of explanation to clarify why it's unreal, what it would be if it were
      real, and why poor "deluded" people like to think it's real
      6) Something undefinable which some think should be done away with (as
      opposed to other undefinable things of which some think we need more -
      e.g., beauty, love, truth)

      Purely, randomly, egomaniacally,
      Dan

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Petros:
      Okay, let's try these to see if we can get a handle on this ego thing. You
      have to get a real picture (mental image) in each case. Run each question
      over and over until there is no time lag between the asking and the image,
      i.e. until there is a certainty response. Goal: reality on ego concept.

      "What do you SEE when you think of ego?"

      "What could someone SEE when thinking of ego?"

      "What do you SEE when thinking of non-ego?"

      "What could someone SEE when thinking of non-ego?"

      "What lies can you tell about ego?" (be as exaggerated as you like)

      "What lies could someone else tell about ego?"

      "Who are you?"

      "Who is your ego?"

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Dan:
      Who is this "I" who can move from one state to the other?
      In what way has this "I" become "captured" by ego in one state and
      qualitatively different in the other state? Are we talking about two
      different "I"'s, one and the same "I", or perhaps no "I" at all?


      Marcia:

      I was just having a conversation with my son about this
      very same thing. He was having problems and was
      bemoaning the fact that one day at work he is happy and
      the next day he notices he hates the place. He was trying
      to understand how this could be.

      I said to him that there is a subtle but important distinction
      that takes years to understand. Consensus reality blah, blah,
      blah informs us that we are a single I that is experiencing
      different moods, sensations, thoughts and so forth. That this
      comes primarily from the fact that we live in a material body.
      I said the truth of the matter is that each thought, each sensation,
      each feeling is an I all its own. It thinks it is unified and having
      moods and so forth. It is buffered from seeing that it leaves the
      stage and another I comes on and thinks the same thing. So
      all the while the consciousness thinks it is unified.

      When consciousness moves interior to this, the "sense of self"
      is quite different. All the above is seen as "nothing" i.e. having no
      real substance. Process in time.

      My son said thank you. He said to me quite astonished that
      he had been asleep for two weeks.

      The I doesn't move from one state to another. It is identification
      as a process which makes of a state an I. As for qualitative
      difference some I's are closer to the center and are relatively
      more awake than others that are more to the periphery.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Xan:

      Standing at the precipice
      of no preferences,
      noticing fear.

      With no favorites or
      aversions
      who am I?

      So our desires define us?

      Without definition
      who am I?

      Free fall

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Ivan:

      I think that the definition of ego by modern psichology is not
      good. Psichology deals with the limited area of brain/mind. That is the
      reason I prefer to use center, or inner entity, or observer. Ego is defined
      by psichology is a set of behaviour patterns, or a set of qualities, that
      lives
      out the main caracteristic of it -- the observer. Psichology, maybe some
      exeptions that I don't know of, has not much to do with nonduality -- although
      some individual psichiatrists may be *in it*.

      The understanding of the origin of that gap is a realy interesting
      matter -- and I am not sure about it. How, or when, or in wich situation
      that inner observer first apeared? May be discussed. But I feel that
      more important in thie respect is the seeing of this fact: The gap
      observer/observed if filled with something....thought, or more exactly
      the thinker. How amazing is this. Either there is not the gap, or there is
      the apearence of the observer, the thinker, identified thought, the Me,
      duality.

      I am not the first to say it: the Me dies to give rise to unicity.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Dan:
      Who is this "I" who can move from one state to the other?
      In what way has this "I" become "captured" by ego in one state and
      qualitatively different in the other state? Are we talking about two
      different "I"'s, one and the same "I", or perhaps no "I" at all?


      Marcia:

      I said the truth of the matter is that each thought, each sensation,
      each feeling is an I all its own. It thinks it is unified and having
      moods and so forth. It is buffered from seeing that it leaves the
      stage and another I comes on and thinks the same thing. So
      all the while the consciousness thinks it is unified.

      When consciousness moves interior to this, the "sense of self"
      is quite different. All the above is seen as "nothing" i.e. having no
      real substance. Process in time.

      As for qualitative difference some I's are closer to the center and
      are relatively more awake than others that are more to the periphery.


      Xan:

      These various "I's" can be called Parts. Each part
      of the mind is a programmed unit of memories,
      beliefs and expectations. There is a sense of
      cohesiveness in the fact that my memories
      and programs are not exactly like anyone else's,
      and the images are all seen through my eyes.
      What it is that divides consciousness into individuals
      and then into partitioned aspects of individuals is a
      mystery to me.

      The constant is consciousness itself,
      in which all fragments are known.

      We have parts 'more awake', or
      aware within awareness, and others
      'less awake' which still take their
      mini-universe as entire reality.

      None of the parts has an inkling
      of no-mind, however.


      Marcia:

      Some of the parts can have what Gurdjieff calls magnetic
      center which means that they are drawn towards the
      unseen. People with no magnetic center are totally
      sense based and it can be said of them to let the dead
      bury the dead.

      Magnetic center has to do with ..."to him who has shall
      be given........"

      or needing to already have a little gold in order to make
      gold.

      or "for those who have ears to hear"

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Andrew:

      Consciousness is all that is.
      Indivisible, the very state of existence.
      'I and i' am. (consciousness)
      Everyone senses this.
      I don't know why people
      are unaware that they sense this.
      A confusion that arises with language and logic?
      People distrust their senses,
      preferring to believe what authority tells them.
      People accept the "thousands of years of
      spiritual expoundings", out of respect, as received
      wisdom, Gospel Truth, instead of testing them
      against experience, tearing them apart and
      building them up again.
      Does it matter why, or can that question
      be put aside?
      I only know that I hear feel smell
      touch taste and otherwise sense
      one constant loving unity.
      I can't explain it.
      Things and people and thoughts
      and words and beliefs come and go,
      but reality persists,
      and is directly sensually available
      to the human being I presently believe myself to be.
      But don't take my word for it.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Nora:

      To keep it simple, isn't ego
      that which is convinced this bodymind is separate?
      and True Self that which knows otherwise?
      probably too simple, eh?

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.