The Mind

[Anandanand]

Not-two means not two, no body-mind only that or it, so to say.
So is the mind of a self realized/ enlightened one, still (ceasing to
exist)? or is it busier ?

Looking at Ramana Maharshi, Buddha, NM, etc. Their minds atleast seem
busier being aware of all awareness. All there is to be aware of. Why
am I not aware of all there is to be aware of ?

[empty2]

"Why am I not aware of all there is to be aware of ?

Perhaps you already are... including the idea there must be more of
which you are not!

As 'not two', maybe there is no difference between awareness as the
perception of objects... or not.

[Kuber Technologies]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Anandanand <hgdi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not-two means not two, no body-mind only that or it, so to say.
So is the mind of a self realized/ enlightened one, still (ceasing to
exist)? or is it busier ?

Neither still, nor busy.

For not only it ain't, it never was.............to be stilled or to be busied.




 

Looking at Ramana Maharshi, Buddha, NM, etc. Their minds atleast seem
busier being aware of all awareness.

The appearing of an appearance comes with a momentum.


A momentum, which gets played out..............just like a wound up clock.

In some appearances.....the winding not get further wounded.......is getting run down.

And thus a playing out.........in total unawareness .....
.....of how that playing out is unfolding.


Yet to an onlooker, it might seem to be no different to any other "engaged-in" action/behaviour.

So Nis, .............as if ...........was hell bent to ..........

-make a profit out of the Beedi business
-religiously bang loud cymbals while singing devotional songs, twice a day.
-and in-between ....sit in a loft and scowl, growl, scream at seekers.


Ramana ...........as if.......... was hell bent not to miss his daily sauntering around a hill top or to strictly instruct the kitchen on what is to be prepared and how to prepare, write/correct/edit stuff ..............and listen to posed questions and listen to the invoked answer, if any got articulated.


And of Buddha, it is said that he spoke for 4 decades without letting a single lute escaping the lips.

    



 

All there is to be aware of.

Is it?

Where is the loci for this "All" to be located upon......

...... such that a subsequent awareness of the content of that loci .....can then be generated ?



 

Why
am I not aware of all there is to be aware of ?

How was that "not".......concluded?

Where is the loci where that conclusion got anchored upon?

[Mark Ty-Wharton]

Heads, Tails?

Coin!

Sent from an iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AdvaitaNow" group.
To post to this group, send email to advai...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to advaitanow+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/advaitanow?hl=en.

[Kuber Technologies]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Mark Ty-Wharton <mark.ty...@gmail.com> wrote:

Heads, Tails?

Coin!

 

 

 

 

 

The flipped coin lands and rests on it's edge.

 

[Anandanand]

On Aug 31, 9:19 am, Kuber Technologies <kubertechnolog...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Mark Ty-Wharton

> <mark.tywhar...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >  Heads, Tails?
>
> > Coin!
>
> The flipped coin lands and rests on it's edge.

Or just disappears. Leaving you with one less coin to toss.

On Aug 31, 9:19 am, Kuber Technologies <kubertechnolog...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Mark Ty-Wharton

> <mark.tywhar...@gmail.com>wrote:

[Anandanand]

> Perhaps you already are... including the idea there must be more of
> which you are not!

Yes I think one could say that. But that which is in the 'I don't know
that I don't know' (which as a twist will sound like 'I know that I
don't know that I don't know') zone, though included in the entirety,
doesn't give much reassurance.

[empty2]

>"But that which is in the 'I don't know
that I don't know' (which as a twist will sound like 'I know that I
don't know that I don't know') zone, though included in the entirety,
doesn't give much reassurance."

No less or more than anything else.... as an object temporarily
defining 'awareness'.

[Mark Ty-Wharton]

Whatever way it flips there is only ONE coin (non dual) heads = tails - all the same

Sent from an iPhone

--

[Mark Ty-Wharton]

Disappears?

Sent from an iPhone

[Mark Ty-Wharton]

That sounds very Landmark

And yes I love your twist

It's the liberation of not being attached to the outcome that counts ;-)

Remaining flexible in the game

The reassurance being that things will turn out the way they turn out

The Universe doesn't have a plan

There are probable outcomes

It is our adventure in the chaos that gives it meaning LOL

Sent from an iPhone

[Mahakali]

The mind of the enlightened one gives sufficient attention for the
task at hand. No more, no less than it is actually required. Their
minds, whether still or busy, would apply attention equally in
measure as and when required. The sage does not dwell on thoughts
like "this is me" or "this is not me". No sense of ownership or
creating a story out of the "occurring" or "what is". There is no
"doing" either because that requires a "doer". All there is is only
"occurring" without a "doer" or the "object" of occurring. How can you
possibly be aware of "something" without being aware of "oneness"?


About your question " Why am I not aware of all there is to be aware
of "? Ask yourself the question "who is this I that is not aware of
all there is to be aware of"? Who is aware of this?

And, on a more intellectual note, how can you possibly be aware of
"something" without not being aware of "oneness"? :-)


Kali

[Mahakali]

Hi Anandanand

if you are looking for "certainty", the only certain thing is that
there must be something that is aware of you thinking "your" thoughts
such as "I know that I don't know that I don't know". Once you have
answered affirmatevely to this question, then, you can safely assume
that, both your thoughts and "that which is aware of your thoughts"
are made of the same essence and arise out of the same
Consciousness. ......

My conclusion has been, that they are both the same. No difference.


All the best.


Kali

[Mark Ty-Wharton]

Okay exactly what you are speaking about happens all the time.

On waking at 05:00 am and standing in the bathroom taking a leak, the shear wonder of the Universe was at hand (literally) I looked at my hand a voice said "wow, f***ing hell, this is it" and then "this is what they are on about, I am enlightened" and as I took ownership the magical wonder of the Universe seemed to fall away from me - I grasped at its wonder but the more I tried to hold onto it the further it seemed from a me that was grasping.

The key was in the allowing - when I am not there to grasp and there is only allowing - it's amazing - toothbrushes are amazing the toilet is amazing the reflection of face in the mirror looks much younger than 47.

The person trying to own it isn't real because something else observes the illusion of him as he struggles to accept that he isn't needed for reality to occur.

I think I'll blog this :-)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AdvaitaNow" group.
To post to this group, send email to advai...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to advaitanow+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/advaitanow?hl=en.

--
mark ty wharton
Technical Director (Music) The Open Boat Orchestra
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The contents of this email and the context of the message and any attachments are intended for the recipient only.
You may not copy, or redistribute the contents of this email without the express, written consent of the author.

mark ty-wharton is a composer, philosophical speaker and writer
http://mark.ty-wharton.com
@mark_tywharton

[Mark Ty-Wharton]

In fact thanks for the discussion

Nice creative trigger :-)

Sent from an iPhone

[Anandanand]

> There is no
> "doing" either because that requires a "doer".

But there is doing. When one appearance talks about another (that is
the only way talking is done imo) one can only point at what is
apparent, either as affirmation or negation. An appearance calling
itself an illusion is double illusion and, unlike in mathematics,
doesn't automatically become reality (as double negation), and of
course IMO. Like a dream in a dream is still a dream.

> All there is is only
> "occurring" without a "doer" or the "object" of occurring.

Call it occurring or doing, occurring requires a cause and a
subsequent effect, doing requires a doer.

> How can you
> possibly be aware of "something" without being aware of "oneness"?

Not my authority to comment.

[Anandanand]

Hi Kali,

I don't mean to look at the abstract part like those people were in
the parabhraman state, etc.

And yes, I make up my thoughts and I only am aware of the same
thoughts, I am reasonably sure of it. :)

[San deep]

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Anandanand <hgdi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no
> "doing" either because that requires a "doer".

But there is doing.

Is there?

For doing to be cognized as a doing, there must be a separative loci, where the doing is anchored upon.

And thus be cognizable.

Is there such a separative loci?

 
 
 

When one appearance talks about another (that is
the only way talking is done imo) one can only point at what is
apparent, either as affirmation or negation.

The pointing by an appearance....either in affirmation or in negation ....would it be of any other nature than the nature of the appearance?

 

An appearance calling
itself an illusion is double illusion and, unlike in mathematics,
doesn't automatically become reality (as double negation), and of
course IMO. Like a dream in a dream is still a dream.

Indeed.

And includes any pointings within a dream sequence.


And as much applicable to these prattlings.

So what is the appearance of a "doing", or a "pointing"?

It is a display of what a doing (no matter what is the content of the doing).............what a pointing(no matter what is the content of the pointing, or coming from which direction, whether affirmation or negation)........

...what a doing , what a pointing would be like, if a doing  could ever get done, if a pointing could ever get pointed.

 

 

[Mahakali]

Hi Anandanand

what I was pointing to was "direct experience" i.e. try it out for
yourself. Realize for and by yourself that you and the object you are
looking at are made out of seeing. Ultimately, seeing and
Consciousness are the same too i.e. the same essence.

And, I understand that you rely on your thoughts, of which some may
be more certain than others, but the problem with mind is that it can
only think, it will never know. What you need is knowing, which,
without any disrespect to the mind-orientated members of this forum,
is far more better than a fleeting thought.

Love

Kali

[Mahakali]

Or the coin may be just pivotting on its fulcrum ...

...excellent balance!

:-)

Kali



On 31 Aug, 06:19, Kuber Technologies <kubertechnolog...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Mark Ty-Wharton

> <mark.tywhar...@gmail.com>wrote:

[Mahakali]

Anandanand wrote:
> > There is no
> > "doing" either because that requires a "doer".
>

> But there is doing. When one appearance talks about another(that is the only way talking is done imo) one can only point at what is apparent, either as affirmation or negation.

----When an appearance talks about another, it can only talk about the
story of another. Language, by default, is dual. Thoughts (my or your
thoughts) are only your interpretation of another appearance and they
are not the ultimate Reality.

>>>>An appearance calling itself an illusion is double illusion and, unlike in mathematics,doesn't automatically become reality (as double negation), and of course IMO. Like a dream in a dream is still a dream.

----Yes, I think you are correct. The mind can conjure up many devises
in order not to accept "what is" or just be in the "now".

> > All there is is only
> > "occurring" without a "doer" or the "object" of occurring.
>

> Call it occurring or doing, occurring requires a cause and a
> subsequent effect, doing requires a doer.

----------IMHO,"Occurring" or "arising" are synonymous. They do not
require cause|effect or doer|doership.

> > How can you
> > possibly be aware of "something" without being aware of "oneness"?

> Not my authority to comment.

----By any chance, are you taking the fifth? :-)


Peace and love.


Kali

[empty2]

Hi Mark and thanks for the picture of your morning ablutions.

What I wonder is.... the grasping or taking ownership, the appearance
of 'I',..... are they not equally that which may be simply 'allowed to
happen' as much as your hand or your face in the mirror?

Is not the appearance of an 'I' as much 'awareness as one subject-
object' as anything else?

It does indeed seem that once the idea of 'I' arises, resistance to
apparent separation is futile, but could it be resistance itself that
creates the problem?

Chasing tails here, perhaps, because of course, resistance itself is
also but awareness as is in the moment..... (with deference to Sandeep
- if it could be anything in particular).

On Aug 31, 8:57 pm, Mark Ty-Wharton <m...@ty-wharton.com> wrote:
> Okay exactly what you are speaking about happens all the time.
>
> On waking at 05:00 am and standing in the bathroom taking a leak, the shear
> wonder of the Universe was at hand (literally) I looked at my hand a voice
> said "wow, f***ing hell, this is it" and then "this is what they are on
> about, I am enlightened" and as I took ownership the magical wonder of the
> Universe seemed to fall away from me - I grasped at its wonder but the more
> I tried to hold onto it the further it seemed from a me that was grasping.
>
> The key was in the allowing - when I am not there to grasp and there is only
> allowing - it's amazing - toothbrushes are amazing the toilet is amazing the
> reflection of face in the mirror looks much younger than 47.
>
> The person trying to own it isn't real because something else observes the
> illusion of him as he struggles to accept that he isn't needed for reality
> to occur.
>
> I think I'll blog this :-)
>

> > advaitanow+...@googlegroups.com<advaitanow%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/advaitanow?hl=en.
>
> --

> *mark ty wharton*
> *Technical Director (Music) The Open Boat
> Orchestra<http://www.openboatorchestra.com/>
> *
> _____________________________________________________
> ______________________________________

> The contents of this email and the context of the message and any
> attachments are intended for the recipient only.
> You may not copy, or redistribute the contents of this email without the
> express, written consent of the author.
>

> *mark ty-wharton is a composer, philosophical speaker and writer*
> *http://mark.ty-wharton.com
> @mark_tywharton <http://twitter.com/mark_tywharton>*

[Anandanand]

> what I was pointing to was "direct experience" i.e. try it out for
> yourself. Realize for and by yourself that you and the object you are
> looking at are made out of seeing. Ultimately, seeing and
> Consciousness are the same too i.e. the same essence.

> ----When an appearance talks about another, it can only talk about the
> story of another. Language, by default, is dual. Thoughts (my or your
> thoughts) are only your interpretation of another appearance and they
> are not the ultimate Reality.

Appearances are within the reality, my direct experience is within the
apprearance sphere, any realization of mine, too, is within that. My
writing this post is within that. If there is any seeing,
experiencing, realizing, it is within that, imo.

> ----By any chance, are you taking the fifth? :-)

No, just a bit of offence and a bit of defence !
But seriously, as you point out, I have come to the conclusion that
all are stories, just different ones. All I see is appearant reality,
even if apprearant one.

[Mahakali]

Anandanand wrote:
.....

> Appearances are within the reality, my direct experience is within the apprearance sphere, any realization of mine, too, is within that. My writing this post is within that. If there is any seeing, experiencing, realizing, it is within that, imo.

----Have looked through your sense of separation too? If there is no
separation,then, can the realizing be happening within something
limited such as "your" reality or ego identification?


:-)


Kali