Re: Losing the moon/Andy & LTW

[Guest guest]

Guys,

LTW said: " Andy is it your direct experience that there is no one

here, or is it just a concept you read in a book? "

##I can not know the answer to this question; but if it were any of

my business and I was asked to make a guess, I would guess that for

Andy it is " sometimes an experience " and " sometimes a concept " , but

then that is merely my projection.

Blessings, Steve D.

-- In Loving-what-is , " lovetheworkofbk "

wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Yes, Steve knows nothing, but there is a deeper intelligence in

> > Steve that does indeed know everything. Isn't that why we listen

> > to the still small voice of God within, so that we can access

that

> > vast intelligence from which all new thought arises?

> >

> >

> > ----->No. That isn't why. Listening sometimes happens. And

when

> > it does, it is because there is no other option. There is no one

> > here, nor has there been, ever, to choose to listen or not listen.

> >

>

>

> Andy is it your direct experience that there is no one here, or is

> it just a concept you read in a book?

> I understand that concept that " I " don't exist, but that is not my

> experience in this dream. The fact that " Andy " is still in the

dream

> would seem to indicate to me that part of you still very much

> believes that there is a separate " I " .

>

> Have a beautiful day

>

>

> " There's nothing between you and love but unquestioned concepts. "

> Byron

>

[Guest guest]

Dear brother Steve ~

LTW said: " Andy is it your direct experience that there is no one

here, or is it just a concept you read in a book? "

##I can not know the answer to this question; but if it were any of

my business

*****It IS your business. This is an open forum. We make this stuff

others' business by posting it.

and I was asked to make a guess, I would guess that for

Andy it is " sometimes an experience " and " sometimes a concept " , but

then that is merely my projection.

*****Yes, it is your projection. What isn't? :-))) And, to get to

the heart of it, can you see the paradoxical impossibility of there

being a person who has the experience of of " no I " ? It's a great

magic trick and an hysterical comedy routine!! A person -- who is

not -- " has " an " experience " of " not being. " :-)))) Roflmao (I

rarely employ acronyms, but this is found to be too amusing to

forgo.) How can THAT -- which is not -- Realize, that it is not?

It's like trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Just how

high will you pull yourself. :-))

*****What there IS, is -- on occasion -- identification with the

apparent entity so-labeled " Andy. " This is how manifestation

operates. It is neither a mistake nor something to be seen through,

gotten rid of, rise above, or undo. The identification is, at

present, necessary for phenomenality to function as it does.

Otherwise, " Andy " wouldn't know who is talking to him, not being

identified with the apparent entity, " Andy. " It is the immanence

half of the equation. As long as there is an arising, in

phenomenality, that arising will -- for the most part -- contain, in

part, identification. Yesh, there are some arisings which do not

identify at all. Many of these are contained within the four walls

of mental institutions. See? There can be a usefulness to the

identification. The " issues " arise when the other half of the

equation, the transcendence, is neither seen nor realized.

[Guest guest]

> And, to get to the heart of it, can you see the paradoxical

> impossibility of there being a person who has the experience of

> of " no I " ? It's a great magic trick and an hysterical comedy

> routine!! A person -- who is not -- " has " an " experience " of " not

> being. " . How can THAT -- which is not -- Realize, that it is not?

> It's like trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Just how

> high will you pull yourself. :-))

I don't see this is part of the discussion here: It sounds like ONE

does experience the " not I " , the annulation of separation.

##### There can be an awareness of the illusory nature of the " I, "

but that awareness is not the identified self. It is the Space in

which the identified self appears and disappears. It is non-local

consciousness. The identified self is a localized expression of

consciousness, or Mind.

" I " experience myself as projection and projected (and the observer)

at the same time. And I believe that's what I experience everytime I

don't keep myself from it.

##### Keep it from yourself, don't keep it from yourself. You don't

have that ability. The wording you use, to me, reads like there is a

person () who has the will, power, choice, to keep (or not

keep) it from himself. Perhaps that is not what you meant? For me,

such awareness...it comes and goes, the expansion and contraction,

the immanence and the transcendence. I, as an identified self " Andy "

have neither control, nor say, in any of it. Or, if you like, I have

as much say as a garden hose has a say in what type of water (color,

cleanliness, temperature) is funnelled through it.

To go with your example with the bootstraps: how high can you pull

yourself up, if there's nothing to pull up (nor a reference

for " high " )?

##### Yes. Eggs-actly. That is the point.

>*****What there IS, is -- on occasion -- identification with the

>apparent entity so-labeled " Andy. " This is how manifestation

>operates. It is neither a mistake nor something to be seen through,

>gotten rid of, rise above, or undo. The identification is, at

>present, necessary for phenomenality to function as it does.

>Otherwise, " Andy " wouldn't know who is talking to him, not being

>identified with the apparent entity, " Andy. "

And do I really *know* WHO is talking to me, anyway? If so, why do

the same words from the same person " feel " different at different

times? Given the same " circumstances " ?

##### At different times, at every moment, neither you nor the other

person are any longer the same. Each moment you are alive, the

apparent bodymind mechanism is experiencing sensory input. Each

sensory datum changes, alters, influences, the conditioning (usually

in minor ways). But the conditioning (which is, on a phenomenal

level, what we are), changes, moment to moment to moment. At thing

cannot both be itself and be not-itself simultaneously. So it is no

surpirse that identical words are " felt " or experienced differently

at different moments. Most of the time, the identified entities

believe themselves to be the same, minutes, hours, days, later. They

are not. Thus the illusion. And the hoopla, the drama, of

this " life. "

And how comes different words from different people feel the same?

##### This is how it operates. And why should they not feel the

same? That doesn't strike me as suprising. To go further...the

knowledge that the words " feel " the same....does this not occur

through the mechanism of memory. Is there such trust in that

particular thought-source?

>It is the immanence half of the equation. As long as there is an

>arising, in phenomenality, that arising will -- for the most part --

>contain, in part, identification. Yesh, there are some arisings

>which do not identify at all. Many of these are contained within the

>four walls of mental institutions. See? There can be a usefulness

>to the identification.

Because being inside of a mental institution is a " bad " thing?

##### That depends, does it not (as do all things), on the time, the

place, the cirumstance, and the apparent individuals involved?

And what does that have to do with identifying?

##### In the absence of identification, what appears is a collection

of behaviors that are often judged or assessed as " insanity. "

>The " issues " arise when the other half of the

>equation, the transcendence, is neither seen nor realized.

That's " my " experience.

##### This dialogue, a genuine pleaure, as always, .

[Guest guest]

>##### There can be an awareness of the illusory nature of the " I, "

>but that awareness is not the identified self. It is the Space in

>which the identified self appears and disappears. It is non-local

>consciousness. The identified self is a localized expression of

>consciousness, or Mind.

If awareness (of illusion) is space why is awareness lost if it is

very close to the illusion?

> >>> And, to get to the heart of it, can you see the paradoxical

> >>> impossibility of there being a person who has the experience of

> >>> of " no I " ? It's a great magic trick and an hysterical comedy

> >>> routine!! A person -- who is not -- " has " an " experience " of " not

> >>> being. " . How can THAT -- which is not -- Realize, that it is not?

> >>> It's like trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Just how

> >>> high will you pull yourself. :-))

> >>I don't see this is part of the discussion here: It sounds like ONE

> >>does experience the " not I " , the annulation of separation.

> >##### There can be an awareness of the illusory nature of the " I, "

> >but that awareness is not the identified self. It is the Space in

> >which the identified self appears and disappears. It is non-local

> >consciousness. The identified self is a localized expression of

> >consciousness, or Mind.

> Err... Yes!

> And is there a chance for the " localized expression of

consciousness " to perceive anything out of its local boundaries,

anyway? Or can anything out of thins consciousness penetrate into its

boundaries?

> THIS " localized expression of consciousness " is not aware of

anything outside of its boundaries, and until that changes, for THIS

consciousness nothing else would exist.

> And local becomes global.

> So long, it is left with itself to play.

> And create...

>

> >>> " I " experience myself as projection and projected (and the observer)

> >>>at the same time. And I believe that's what I experience everytime I

> >>>don't keep myself from it.

>

>

> >##### Keep it from yourself, don't keep it from yourself. You don't

> >have that ability.

> I don't think that matters.

>

> >The wording you use, to me, reads like there is a

> >person () who has the will, power, choice, to keep (or not

> >keep) it from himself. Perhaps that is not what you meant?

> Well, it is what you perceive...

>

> >For me,

> >such awareness...it comes and goes, the expansion and contraction,

> >the immanence and the transcendence. I, as an identified self " Andy "

> >have neither control, nor say, in any of it. Or, if you like, I have

> >as much say as a garden hose has a say in what type of water (color,

> >cleanliness, temperature) is funnelled through it.

> Great! So you are left to sit back and observer. And enjoy!

>

> >>To go with your example with the bootstraps: how high can you pull

> >>yourself up, if there's nothing to pull up (nor a reference for

" high " )?

> >##### Yes. Eggs-actly. That is the point.

> And for me that reads as: wherever I want!

>

> >>>*****What there IS, is -- on occasion -- identification with the

> >>>apparent entity so-labeled " Andy. " This is how manifestation

> >>>operates. It is neither a mistake nor something to be seen through,

> >>>gotten rid of, rise above, or undo.

> Yes. It IS!

>

> >>>The identification is, at

> >>>present, necessary for phenomenality to function as it does.

> >>>Otherwise, " Andy " wouldn't know who is talking to him, not being

> >>>identified with the apparent entity, " Andy. "

> >>And do I really *know* WHO is talking to me, anyway? If so, why do

> >>the same words from the same person " feel " different at different

> >>times? Given the same " circumstances " ?

> >##### At different times, at every moment, neither you nor the other

> >person are any longer the same. Each moment you are alive, the

> >apparent bodymind mechanism is experiencing sensory input. Each

> >sensory datum changes, alters, influences, the conditioning (usually

> >in minor ways).

> Yes. Whatever is seen as " minor " .

>

> >But the conditioning (which is, on a phenomenal

> >level, what we are), changes, moment to moment to moment. At thing

> >cannot both be itself and be not-itself simultaneously. So it is no

> >surpirse that identical words are " felt " or experienced differently

> >at different moments. Most of the time, the identified entities

> >believe themselves to be the same, minutes, hours, days, later. They

> >are not. Thus the illusion. And the hoopla, the drama, of

> >this " life. "

> Yes, that was what I was referring to.

>

> >>And how comes different words from different people feel the same?

> >##### This is how it operates. And why should they not feel the

> >same? That doesn't strike me as suprising. To go further...the

> >knowledge that the words " feel " the same....does this not occur

> >through the mechanism of memory. Is there such trust in that

> >particular thought-source?

> Exactly. How do I ever know it is the same, if not for memory. And

has memory ever been real...

>

> >>>It is the immanence half of the equation. As long as there is an

> >>>arising, in phenomenality, that arising will -- for the most part --

> >>>contain, in part, identification. Yesh, there are some arisings

> >>>which do not identify at all. Many of these are contained within the

> >>>four walls of mental institutions. See? There can be a usefulness

> >>>to the identification.

> >>Because being inside of a mental institution is a " bad " thing?

> >##### That depends, does it not (as do all things), on the time, the

> >place, the cirumstance, and the apparent individuals involved?

> Yes. Since all of that is an illusion...

>

> >>And what does that have to do with identifying?

> >##### In the absence of identification, what appears is a collection

> >of behaviors that are often judged or assessed as " insanity. "

> Really? How is that experienced?

>

> >>>The " issues " arise when the other half of the

> >>>equation, the transcendence, is neither seen nor realized.

> >>That's " my " experience.

> >##### This dialogue, a genuine pleaure, as always, .

> Yes, thank you!

>

> Love,

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren Freunden von PC zu PC!

> Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!

>

>

[Guest guest]

>##### There can be an awareness of the illusory nature of the " I, "

>but that awareness is not the identified self. It is the Space in

>which the identified self appears and disappears. It is non-local

>consciousness. The identified self is a localized expression of

>consciousness, or Mind.

If awareness (of illusion) is space

----->Not " space, " but " the Space, " as in a Contextual Space, not

physical space.

why is awareness lost if it is very close to the illusion?

----->It is not lost. It can never be lost. It may be over-shadowed

at a particular moment. Are the stars lost when the morning sun

shines brightly? They are there, as bright as ever, but just not

seen.

[Guest guest]

Can you explain me this post

As if I was a 3 years old????

And pour me a drink

Make it a double...

T

>

>

> >##### There can be an awareness of the illusory nature of the " I, "

> >but that awareness is not the identified self. It is the Space in

> >which the identified self appears and disappears. It is non-local

> >consciousness. The identified self is a localized expression of

> >consciousness, or Mind.

>

> If awareness (of illusion) is space

>

>

> ----->Not " space, " but " the Space, " as in a Contextual Space, not

> physical space.

>

>

> why is awareness lost if it is very close to the illusion?

>

>

> ----->It is not lost. It can never be lost. It may be over-

shadowed

> at a particular moment. Are the stars lost when the morning sun

> shines brightly? They are there, as bright as ever, but just not

> seen.

>