> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
> From: brahmamurti@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Lines: 177
> Message-ID:
<00bf5ed0-2de6-4401-b3f6-1647ae1407d8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 22:37:43 +0000 (UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 87.54.176.162
> Newsgroups: alt.ucp
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Subject: strange "knowledge"
brahmamurti wrote:
> Ok saw the recent posts on Bob the sailor etc etc. Looked him up.
> Seemed like boring jada jada etc. On his site there was a link to
> urban guru cafe and on this there was a link to this:
> http://livinginpeace-thenaturalstate.com/
Way Cool! Thanks for the reference.
I love text articles by these guys.
> What caught the interest, if you may call it such, are the statements
> posted. They seem to point at the same thing which is probably why
> he brought them.
>
> Lets bring some of them here. They can be found on the front page of
> the site mentioned before.
>
> Here is a statement that Stephen Wingate claims struck him to the
> core:
>
> “You cannot possibly say that you are what you think yourself to be!
> Your ideas about yourself change from day to day, and moment to
> moment. Your self-image is the most changeful thing you have. It is
> utterly vulnerable, at the mercy of a passer-by. To know what you
> are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. The
> clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be described
> in negative terms only, the quicker you will come to the end of your
> search and realize your limitless being." —Nisargadatta Maharaj
>
> To me this sounds exactly like what Justin pointed to.
>
>> “You cannot possibly say that you are what you think yourself to
>> be!"
>
> I never made such a claim. I may one day say that I am a great person
> and the next day that I am not. Even though I say these things
> doesn't mean that I think I am those things. It is simply a situation
> in which I take a role of being. I don't have to "really" be those
> things to play the role. If the supply is short then you're willing
> to settle for less. In that sense I can very well be regarded as this
> or that in that situation.
>
> A point beside. I can say almost anything I like. "I am what I think
> myself to be". So I have just refuted your statement whoever you may
> be that I cannot possibly say. I just did, punk.
>
>> Your ideas about yourself change from day to day, and moment to
>> moment. Your self-image is the most changeful thing you have. It is
>> utterly vulnerable, at the mercy of a passer-by. To know what you
>> are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. The
>> clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be
>> described in negative terms only, the quicker you will come to the
>> end of your search and realize your limitless being.”
> —Nisargadatta Maharaj
>
> yes this world changes. It is its nature. We're part of it so it is
> not big news that we change also. So our mind changes all the time.
> Comment: so?!
>
> It gets even better and deeper as he goes on to quote Bob:
>
> “The sense of presence expressing through the mind as the thought ‘I
> am’ is pure intelligence-energy. It is the knowing that you are. The
> same intelligence-energy is functioning this universe. That innate
> intelligence is the essence of everything that appears and
> disappears. Realize that you are aware of presence right now. You
> know that you are. It spontaneously arises. The vibration, pulsation
> or throb of that intelligence is happening spontaneously. There is
> nothing to start it; nothing to stop it. Realize there is no one to
> do it, and nothing to do, and it will settle down of its own accord.”
> —‘Sailor’ Bob Adamson
>
>> “The sense of presence expressing through the mind as the thought
>> ‘I am’ is pure intelligence-energy.
>
> And this is not "just" something you thought of! In bible it reads I
> am that I am. So you're trying to be a god by sitting and
> contemplating these ideas. And so you claim that the 'I am' is pure
> intelligence-energy. The more I read this sentence the less sense it
> makes. How I am suppose to know what this pure intelligence-energy
> is? What does it look like, smell like, taste like, etc? And can you
> prove in any way? I didn't think so.
>
>> It is the knowing that you are.
>
> Been there dude. yes I exist. This piece of info isn't news to me
> either.
>
>> The same intelligence-energy is functioning this universe.
>
> It might. On the other hand it mighten't.
>
>> That innate intelligence is the essence of everything that appears
>> and disappears.
>
> innate? wow. so we're born with intelligence. Not news. But this
> intelligence is the essence of everything that appears and
> disappears. In other words you're saying. If the tree falls in the
> woods and no one is there so hear it, it doesn't make a sound. Get
> out of here!
>
>> Realize that you are aware of presence right now.
>
> Why should I? I don't see any harm in doing so. I have played with
> this before. It was interesting but in the long run very boring and
> straining on my nerves. So I stopped.
>
> Oh I know what you're doing. You're trying to make us into an animal.
> Glorifying the state to be in the moment, be happy in the moment.
> Don't worry be happy man! So I don't have to go anywhere or try to be
> anything to be happy. Animals aren't unhappy or happy you say, they
> just "are". They just go around minding their own business in accord
> to their beingness. And this is how we should be?! Sorry I am not
> buying this.
>
>> You know that you are. It spontaneously arises. The vibration,
>> pulsation or throb of that intelligence is happening spontaneously.
>> There is nothing to start it; nothing to stop it. Realize there is
>> no one to do it, and nothing to do, and it will settle down of its
>> own accord.”
> —‘Sailor’ Bob Adamson
>
> But you still haven't told us why we need to realize this. Nothing to
> start it. Your intelligence, you, will just spontaneously send out a
> vibration causing beingness or ?
>
> Ok you lost me. I fail to see the usefulness of having these thought
> patterns installed. Why would I want to think like this?
>
> Ok one last one.
>
> “So the belief in the existence of a separate self and our identity
> with that is the root of the problem. But eventually you come round
> to asking if the limited self that we have been taking ourselves to
> be is real or even present. If it is real, then we should be able to
> find it. So where is it? What is it actually? You come to see that
> all suffering is based on a cause which, upon investigation is found
> to be completely non-existent. Seeing this, all possible doubts and
> questions are undermined and cannot survive. Simultaneously, you come
> to see that you are inseparable from that natural state of presence-
> awareness which is inherently free, whole and complete. Nothing or
> no one can shake you from this understanding. It is the fact of your
> being, and you are that.” —John Wheeler
>
> It starts with "So..." which means something came before that so. And
> this what came before led to this so. As if it was a logical line of
> thought. 1, 2, 3 etc.
>
> I think it is natural to think that there is a separate self because
> after all we have separate bodies. i don't know what the other people
> are thinking. I haven't met one person yet that has the exactly same
> opinion on everything that I do. I see no proof and even indications
> that would lead me to the conclusion that it is a possibility that
> we are all one. Been down that road once. The arguments would have to
> make more sense than these do.
>
> Limited self.. Does it make any difference if the self is real or not
> if you can't prove it either way. We might all be inside a huge
> matrix computer.. well you've seen the movie. I can't think of any
> way to prove it either way.
>
> "if it is real we should be able to find it". Did you try? Who told
> you had to find it or even that everything that is real can be
> "found". What if you're just wrong and the self is what you thought
> it was all along. Ok and suffering is based on self so it doesn't
> exist. Try to tell that to starving children, abused children, or
> anybody who is suffering. "Its not real because I cannot find the
> self ho hum".
>
> then there are some seemingly arbitrary statements that he is
> grateful that he is alive etc etc.
>
> Please! Stop feeding yourself with these nonsense! He said it himself
> that there is something wrong with the world. if everybody thought
> like he did, it might be a better place to live. I am quite sure of
> it. The fact however is that it is not. This place stinks because
> people have been abusing people who are stupid enough to buy into
> anything that seems to make them suffer less, or not at all, be it
> now(today) or in the afterlife.
>
> I am tired and I need to sleep. Hopefully I will be able to so soon.
>
> Peace to all.
>
> ucpalx
Dear Alex:
CONGRATULATIONS!
===================
YOU MADE IT UP TO
DIS-AGREE-ABILITY!
===================
This is closely reasoned.
It puts your viewpoint out
there ... with no back-off.
It reflects YOUR thoughts.
It's marvelously disagreeable ...
without being vicious or sadistic!
You're just NOT going to pretend
to agree with things you don't!
If you don't understand it ...
you certainly can't agree with it.
GOOD FOR YOU!
When you know someone is
dis-agree-ABLE, if he
DOES agree with you, you
can be confident he's
not just bu****ing.
I imagine you are missing the
point of his article, but I
don't have the hexperience
he is trying to relay either.
I'm seeking to have it myself.
Since I don't Know, the best
way I can think about it is
in tone scale terms. Below
zero is the false, fake universe
of alteration and denial. Above
zero, you ARE yourself, but as
you go above 20, the SEPARATION
of self from others disappears.
Gosh! The self must disappear too!
I imagine it's something like
being the ocean, rather than a wave.
It must be a matter of what you
identify with. When you stop
making separations, it's all one.
I keep nibbling on foreground
vs. background. If *I* is my
foreground, then "everybody else"
is my background. But that's
just an arbitrary separation:
both are PARTS of the WHOLE ONE.
Intelligence or Perception itself
would be the whole I am part of:
such as "The I AM that I AM"
But that's just Thoughts About
or where [who] I might be: not
what I directly perceive. I
must have a lot of separation
to undo to be it all again.
I don't think an individual
can raise his tone above 20.
When CONSCIOUSNESS rises above tone
20, it ceases to be an INDIVIDUAL.
That's my metaphor to think with.
Sailor Bob, Nisargadatta, Neal,
Frank, etc. seem to line up
perfectly with the Dzog-Chen
non-duality tradition of
Namkhai Norbu, etc, but
without the intense and
perhaps arbitrary cultural
symbols history has wrapped
around the Buddhism/Dzog-chen
movement, so they seem simpler
and more sensible to me.
I look at it as a place I might be:
everywhere. Lot of differences to now!
Or who could I be? Everyone?
Lots of differences! But telepathy
is being someone else too! That's
at least a start on being everyone!
Congratulations on raising
your own chronic tone!
You're delightfully
disagreeable now!
O
--- )
\
..
|
