… use the mind to know the mind to go beyond the mind.

Or were the previous thoughts communicated by noone?

A noone who has asserted, on more than one occasion, that the mind needs to be understood?

It really doesn’t matter what you may be searching for or seeking. Fame, fortune or enlightenment.

They all have one thing in common.

To search (for anything), you need a searcher. Ditto for seeking.

And “searcher” and “seeker” are just two of a myriad of identities that we can mask ourselves with.

What you are searching for or seeking… is pretty much inconsequential.

That there is a searcher or seeker intact… is more importrant to real-ize.

Thanks for the inquiry.

Running streams are always more fun to dip one’s feet in than the still water of an assumption.

May I suggest Ralph, that you hone your inquiry skills by inquiring, instead of assuming, as to what a person’s motivation might be?

They (inquiry skills) can be helpful in any self-inquiry effort, if that is your passion.

Had you asked, I would revealed that I am not on a search. I gave up being a searcher or seeker quite some time ago.

As for a true nature, true as opposed to what? An untrue one?

True and untrue are differentiation tools of the mind.

And any conviction that something is true… scratch that, ALL such convictions… are mental constructs.

And while I have no aversion to mental constructs, I also have no obsession with them.

Inquire, Ralph, instead of form assumptions. It might lead to different (albeit temporary) (ap)perceptions.

Lastly, and had you asked, I am not interested in proving any pointer wrong.

Instead, they are all entertaining to me.

And equally impotent in removing the separation between an “I” (subject) and an other (object).

Simply because any concept merely only reinforces the concept maker, The Mind.

I don’t bite, Ralph. Feel free to inquire when you feel tempted to assume instead.

Here is a wonderful quote:

“The analysis of pointers is pointless but the mind wants to have content so it will ask questions about the pointers instead of allowing the pointers to point. “

Ralph replies, “Morgan, the belief is already there. The falseness of the belief must be seen.”

So if you are a thought (which you are)… and you see if to be false (which is also a thought, the thought of falseness)…

aren’t you creating a thought about a thought?

Believing something to be true or false is thought-based.

Just another set of concepts about concepts, which keeps the conceptual ball of yarn growing.

Could it be that nothing needs to be seen in any particular way (including true or false), for the conceptual ball of yarn to unravel?

….yes, of course, who else can? …the UGC strickly claims, there is ‘no other’ .
Ed: Ralph you need help with your jokes, they are a little juvenile sometimes.

Quote: “It is not our idea of ourselves that wakes up — it is the dormant consciousness within that awakens to itself. “

How would that work? Would she interview herself?
Ed: Another joke-ster who needs to do some night classes in humor. Sheeshkabab. Did you hear the one about the frog? “………..If I can teach this frog to cook, you are redundant”

True but I sure can tell that the ‘repressed’ uncomfortable thoughts (beliefs) will resurface time and time again . Why is that ?

…. maybe what we are searching for ‘lies’ within these particular thoughts ?

People are either seeking or not seeking.

But those that are not seeking go into two categories: awake or ignorant.

In other words to stop seeking isn’t what produces being awake.

As for me as a seeker, to stop seeking, seems to put me back in ignorance.
When I give up on the idea that there’s a way to undo the belief in a self entity, I still seem to carry on with a self entity.

Of coarse, if there’s no self entity, then there’s no way that there is anything that seeks.
But, if there’s a belief in the self entity – there is either seeking or ignorance, yes?

“I am not awake.” – if ever there is a belief in the self entity this is always true.

To be awake is to have no belief in the self entity, in which case there is no “I” to be awake or not.

I guess.

From the standpoint of psychology, being able to not be focused on yourself is how to be “cool”. Like if you are always looking for attention or praise or being self indulgent – like depressed about what you don’t have – those ways of acting are all involved with the self and cause all sorts of friction in life. In other words, basic psychology is also about losing grip on obsessive self importance. Then waking up is just the ultimate letting go of self, yes?

Thank you.

Why would you want to stop a transmission instead of using your clicker?

Thank you.

Is not-that a something as well?

If what is is defined what it is not, then both what is and what it is not are somethings.

A is a thing; is the absence of A a thing as well?

If it is, then maybe undifferentiation is the absence of both that and not-that.

Which are both things.

Descriptors which differentiate something from something else (me from not-me, that from not-that, etc.) still keep the semblance of the differentiation intact.

‘But still one can’t just stop seeking and go back to belief in being an entity – that’s no way to stop seeking.’

See, Eric, you are wrong and right with what you say. If you stop seeking, you don’t go back to being an entity. That’s the point, you realize there is no ‘you’ to seek. There is no entity! Therefore, end of seeking that never began! If you tell yourself that you are going to stop seeking, you have built into that equation a ‘you’ exists, and it’s going to find something. Whenever there is a ‘you’ there will always be seeking and not finding. As Peter says, to paraphrase, focus on all that you are that cannot be named. You are so much more of the real estate than this thinking mind. You can see that in a second’s pause of mind. That’s why Bob says ‘Full stop (.)!’

‘And isn’t asking “what am I?” seeking that can stop the seeking once there’s no “I” to be found? Then you are left with no self entity to ask that question and no seeking is possible because there’s no entity there to seek anything.’

To this I say what Bob would say, ‘If you see there was no ‘you’ now, was there ever a ‘you’? So, was there ever any seeking done by a seeker, Eric or Areti?

‘But while there’s a belief in the self – then seek the self and supposedly expose the lie and fabrication and then does one wake up this way?’

‘You’ doesn’t wake up or, even, ‘you’ was ever not unawake. There is no ‘you’, fullstop! Is there not ‘wakefulness’ right now? Isn’t there awareness of all that’s playing right now? Isn’t seeing and hearing always happening? Knowing? Thinking and breathing? Is that ‘you’ that is awake, or is there just wakefulness?

And further, who is this ‘you’ that could ever have been? Ever have existed? Ever have had the thought ‘I am not awake’—did not wakefulness exist for that arising thought? Does it have any more substance than a thought? Wouldn’t wakefulness be here, even, without a thought? Does all existence vanish without thought?

Seeking is seeking, no matter what form it takes. When you are invited to see who it is that you really are, nothing can be found there, so who is this one that is seeking. That is the point, there is no one there who can seek, it is the One only. Engagement in the story that ‘I’ am not already That does not change the fact that it is all the One. You cannot wake up, for who is there to wake up? The story of someone there to wake up is the mind stories that there is always and ever awareness. There is no truth to the stories of mind. Not even the story that there is a mind. A simple examination of the way that thoughts arise, the way that speech arises, shows that there cannot be anyone there who is thinking the thought or speaking those words. Try to guess what your next thought will be. Can you? Bob always says, ‘No one can tell me what their next thought will be.’

When there is seeking going on, the focus is on mind content, not on the real substance of what you are. But, that which you are must always and ever be there for those arising thoughts to appear. So, really, it is just a case of a play of misidentification.

Awareness or consciousness has always been what you are. If you think about what was there when you were a child and what is still there now, you will re-cognize that what ‘was’ (is) knowing or experiencing the feelings and thoughts is the same thing that is knowing and experiencing things now. That knowing is not touched, regardless of the experiencing. For example, pain and anguish or happiness and bliss do not register any differently in the knowing, the knowing is not tarnished by anything. And it is the same here as it is ‘there’ (here).

Care to specifically point to where I asserted, either directly or indirectly, that I “knew what is going on”, as you assert that I did?

And care to cite any actual evidence that I impose anything on my daughter? You have no clue about our interaction(s). Although I suspect that if you did, you couldn’t make this stuff up (that I impose anything on her) sofreely as you do.

And when did I ever, either directly or indirectly, assert that I was “awakened” in any shape or form? Oneness is certainly something that I enjoy discussing. But I rarely use that “a” word. Why do you want to pretend that I did?

Is it your preferred style to create critiques out of thin air, instead of basing things that someone actually said or did?

If so, I’ll just note it for future circumstances. It can become your modus operandi for how you create critiques.

As I said in a previous podcast :

“before enlightement your’re an asshole……. after enlightement you’re still an asshole.”

….. difference being that now the ‘seeing’ of being an asshole is crystal clear.

But still one can’t just stop seeking and go back to belief in being an entity – that’s no way to stop seeking.

And isn’t asking “what am I?” seeking that can stop the seeking once there’s no “I” to be found? Then you are left with no self entity to ask that question and no seeking is possible because there’s no entity there to seek anything.

But while there’s a belief in the self – then seek the self and supposedly expose the lie and fabrication and then does one wake up this way?

I was just kidding — was sort of curious how desperate you were to back up your conceptual stance, e.g., testimonials.

Anyway, this was particularly rich: “A true friend will risk his own reputation to help.” -Gilligan Schultz

You are something else, man! Hope to buy you a Foster’s when I’m out there next week… if Will hasn’t consumed them all.

Peace, Love & Warmth,
Arse’

Thanks Gilbert this is exactly what I was trying to say. The falling away of seeking is awesome, gratitude for the pointers to seeing-knowing is immense and thanks to what you and many others do by pointing to this has “worked for me. I am hoping that many more programs will be produced as I love the music!

Do we still conceptualize after the penny drops, or do we just recognize them as concepts. I guess non-dual awareness is the same as non-concept awareness?

Thanks for the remark “If you want to be humiliated into full consciousness then Kiss my ass.” It made me laugh out loud. I needed that!

Sully

(took so long to edit this, only HIC came up before)

stops.

(I am a little drunk for the first time in a long time. Forgive my bluntness. Or not. I don’t give a shit)

You can’t get it. You can’t lose it. You already Are it! …. whether on or off the merry-go-round.

Have a nice ride,
R.

If there’s oneness, then why do people in the know of oneness say all those other people are not knowing oneness? That would contradict that there is only one but saying there are those that are not in/of one.

What does the “let the dead bury the dead” quote actually mean?

If the mind can not “get it” – would we be better off to just lose our minds?

Is it possible to not believe anything at all? Really? Aren’t there some beliefs that run no matter what – that exist as the DNA and physical make up?

I don’t know.

If you don’t know make it known you don’t. Nothing more frustrating than reading someone that thinks they know – it’s frustrating enough to read someone that does know.

Jack Benny and Fred Allen used to have a fake feud in order to amuse their radio listeners. I suspect you take up the cudgel to windmills for the same purpose….amusement.

I think you may have taken my post the wrong way and then over-reacted. Perhaps the button pusher had his buttons pushed, for no reason.

Here’s what I posted:

“Gilbert: – how many ways does it have to be told? IS anyone really ‘onto this’?

Richard: No one Gilbert; just you.

Gilbert: Or is everyone just on a merry go ride at Luna Park?

Richard: No one Gilbert; just you.”

Here’s what it means: There is only You, no one else. You are preaching to the non-existant choir.

More power to you Gilbert. It was an honor meeting you. Gotta get outside now and walk my invisible dog.

Words are never a problem, Morgan. They are, after all, just words.

How you use them, however, determines if they point with discernment or with judgment.

Or whether you believe that someone’s egoic bullshit stink’s more than someone else’s.

How you use words reveals a lot more than the quantity of words that you use.

Don’t ya think?

Shhh – for “someone” who thinks that words are patently dualistic, you sure pump alot of them out.

The word “love” just indicates non-duality. Nisarg said that there is the active belief in a separate person and we try to love from there which is utterly impossible as that imagined entity has absolutely no reality other than as an unexamined assumption. Love is what IS and is palpably present in the absence of the self idea. Of course it’s all there is but the self idea can seemingly “eclipse” it so to speak. To see that “me” is just a concept is freedom from belief in it.

I always stand in my own egoic bullshit.

It comes with the territory of inhaling and exhaling.

And I haven’t met anyone, who is also inhaling and exhaling, who isn’t standing in their egoic bullshit too.

If you’re inhaing and exhaling, you’re standing in egoic bullshit.

The question is, do you believe that yours stinks less than someone else’s? Or not at all?

Here’s something to chew on:

Egoic bullshit is rarely the problem. Believing that yours stinks less, or not at all, is the seed of the problem.

P.S. I wasn’t the one who claimed that someone might not do something because of “too much egoic bullshit”.

careful – you’re standing in something…..

How much is too much?

Is there a lesser amount of egoic bullshit that is more acceptable?

Or is some egoic bullshit simply “better” than others?

Sometimes, we may feel bothered by another person’s egoic bullshit… because we are so enamored with our own.

Egoic bullshit is egoic bullshit.

Quantities and qualities are irrelevant.

They only become relevant when we think that ours don’t stink.

Reminder for locals in Melbourne and Victoria, Sydney etc. John Wheeler and Mark West will be at Bob’s meetings from next Sunday. They will be around for about a week.
Get there if you can. It will be crowded, some come early to get a good seat.
P.S. Gilbert may be along at some of the meetings: pack a handgun. Areti finds too much egoic bullshit on parade and will likely not be in attendance.

Of course, Nisargadatta said many things, some of which contradict one another.”

Well I ‘m not going to contradict Nisargadatta,
however, notice he is saying the play is due to “your” consciousness, its not yours for a start.

“Everything is unreal.” Can there be a real meat body in unreal?

Also ” He considers consciousness to be an unreal concept to be transcended”.

As a concept, yes, the concept of consciousness is unreal therefore transcending it must also be unreal.

Its only a problem when its seen as “your” consciousness, making it personal, taking it to be separate, thats the play in “your” consciousness he is refering too, the play of separation and concepts.

KNOWING is not in the concepts. the concepts appear in the KNOWING.
Simple. Get that one and the rest will take care of itself.
The simplest pointers are the hardest to ‘get’ because the sophisticated mind always misses the simplicity…..always.
Turn off your computer for three days and then SEE who you are.

It appears that it’s easy to confuse creating a finger that points with judgment with a finger that points with discernment.

How can you readily tell the difference between the two?

Just pay attention to how someone may be responding to someone’s else’s differing point of view.

Are they reacting with discernment or with judgment?

And is there a difference between reacting with judgment and reacting with discernment?

They are different response modes to me. Are they to you?

Richard: No one Gilbert; just you.

Gilbert: Or is everyone just on a merry go ride at Luna Park?

Richard: No one Gilbert; just you.

Editor: “Stick it where the monkey sticks his nuts, Richard” – With love – G.

Why would you want anyone to see something the same way that you do?

And why would you want to be of help for them to see something as you do?

Do you believe that others needs help… even if they themselves believe that they do?

Because You Are Me, it is inconsequential to me if you see anything differently than I do.

I have no desire for you to see anything as I do. No matter what the subject matter may be.

I will juxtapose something that I resonate with next to something that you do, of course.

But that’s only to see if the juxtaposition will have any affect on any of the perspectives.

Not to get you or anyone to see anything a certain way.

You are free to be anyone whom you believe yourself to be. Or not, of course.

Simply because, and in spite of anything that you may believe, You Are Me and I Am You.

Regardless of how little or how much we may resonate on any perspective.

You Are Me and I Am You.

I’m pretty sure I read about consciousness resulting from the meat body by Nisargadatta, or else by Ramesh Balsekar summerizing Nisargadatta, or both.

Anyway, here is a somewhat similar quote from Nisargadatta in “Consciousness and the Absolute” January 30, 1981 A.M.:

“I am telling you with the authority of a jnani, everything is unreal. This is all the play due to your consciousness, and your consciousness is due to the food essence body.”

He considers consciousness to be an unreal concept to be transcended.

Of course, Nisargadatta said many things, some of which contradict one another.

PETER BROWN — CAN YOU HEAR ME!?

No thought or belief deserves more value than another thought or belief.

Beliefs are just that… beliefs.

Unless you believe otherwise, of course.

But you’re just sorta gabbin’ though.

Again, I don’t resonate with this. Since for something to be in something else, it requires at least two spacial points. An aspect of duality, for sure. But certainly not of non-duality.

In keeping with “I am that” (the finger I do resonate with), I am both duality and nonduality. And duality IS non-duality as well, as undifferentiation. As differentiation, they, of course, complement each other by defining what is by what it is not.

All differentiations are of the mind. The no-mind is absent any differentiation. Including real/illusion, me/not-me, etc.

I don’t expect or want anyone else to feel the same way. It’s just a quirk of how I create such fingers. Other fingers may not have that quirk. That’s just fine and dandy with me. For I am them too.

“I am that”… to include everything that appears… works fine for me. In all of its forms and manifestations. material or otherwise.

Now that the investigation has been done there is nothing else to do…nothing changes…the water still appears in the mirage and the sea still appears blue.

~’~

“As my teacher once told me, as we sat on thin mats in our socks — ‘THERE IS NO DUALITY IN NON-DUALITY.’”

mY TEACHER WAS gILBERT sCHULTZ

SEEING-kNOWING.com <3

[Ed note: Arsenio suffers from dyslexic-irritable nicorette-Down's syndrome.]

Can awakening happen on the other end of the internet? In the sense that the ‘thought character’ gets a little “wavery,” if you will.

If I am you (which I am), it matters not what I may or may not think/believe about anything.

Similarly, and if you are me (which you are), it matters not what you may or may not think/believe about anything.

Is that the case with you too?

I am you… and it matters not what you think or feel about anything. I am you regardless of the machinations of your mind.

I’m sure that you apperceive this too.

P.S. All our thoughts and concepts and beliefs are just vehicles of entertainment… for the I Am You and the You Are Me. N’est-ce pas?

Consciousness is not a product of the meat body, its concepts and belief in a separate entity with its own consciousness. I doubt Nisargadatta said that.

“Prior to” is not the best translation of the word which is often translated as “beyond/prior to” which is closer but still not exact.

In this conversation, talking about simultaneous, perhaps “beyond” would be better.

What do you make of this Nisargadatta quote, “I by Myself, Awareness, descend into this consciousness, and in this consciousness I express Myself in manifold ways, in innumerable forms.”?

Consciousness comes and goes, within the Absolute. A play of the Absolute, the only way It can know Itself. Consciousness, a product of the “meat body” arises at a body’s birth and goes upon it’s disintegration. The Absolute is immoveable and unchanging.

The above paragraph is basic Nisargadatta unless I am mistaken, which is possible. It has happened. One time I thought I was wrong and it turned out I was mistaken about being wrong.

But I gotta agree with Michael Scarfo, you humans are silly.

P.S. I guess I have given Shhh a lot of food here for metaphysical excersises, haha

I know who I am…so I know who you are.

The important thing is…do you know who I am?

“Prior to”… is a measurement. You are using a measuring device of time, or “prior to”, to refer to no-time.

“Words..words..words……”

Exactly. An exercise in futility. Exactly my point.

P.S. “Beyond” is also an aspect of space, a product of the mind too. Using the mind’s differentiating tools of time and space (i.e. “prior to” and “beyond”) to refer to no-time and no-space… well, it just reasserts the mind, does it not? Why count on the mind to refer to no-mind?

On the other hand, and when there is doing without the do-er… subject-object is absent.

No do-er… no self… no other… no perceived separation of anything/one from anything/one else.

No words/thoughts/concepts either. No matter how inviting and enticing they may seem to be.

Which is only an appearance, of course.

And yes, I’m temporarily on the west coast. But Asia is where I will be returning to eventually.

You are the fastest poster in the West! Are you in the west?

There is only the immediacy…and Everything appears in it… without exception…including the tasting, the taster and the tasted.

You can avoid all this conceptual speculation merely by tasting the pizza without a taster.

With the absence of a taster, there is only tasting.

As many practitioners of zen will point their finger towards.

Just as long as we re-cognize, to use one of gilbert’s favorite hyphenations, that “prior to” and “simultaneously” are aspects of time.

Linear time, of course, is a product of the mind. As is space.

So when you use descriptors like “prior to” and “simultaneous”, you may be using aspects of time to refer to no-time.

I’ll let you consider what can happen when you do that.

The thought “I am really enjoying this pizza!” is appearing in or on the tasting.

The tasting is there prior to the “I” appearing.

The tasting is there with or without the “I”.

The tasting is just happening.

The imagined entity is just a thought appearing on or in the natural fuctioning/intelligence.

Next time you bite into your cheese and pickle sandwich, the tasting is there prior to the thought “I am really enjoying this taste!”

The “I” and the “sandwich” are now conceptual/thought subject and object appearing on or in the tasting.

Where are you in all this?

PS: Right now…notice the knowing presence which is inseparable from what you are…making words like “prior to” not at all accurate. There is only the immediacy and everything is appearing in It…without exception…the tasting AND the thoughts of subject and object.

http://beingisknowing.blogspot.com/

A few posts afterward Gilbert says: There is NO awakening. There is no entity that is asleep. There is no entity anywhere, whatsoever – full stop – Finito.

This is a good answer to Jeremy’s question, and coming from one of Jeremy’s chosen few.

To me, Self Realization is about the Self realizing it’s Selfness. It’s like kids in bed pretending to be asleep. It is likewise with manifestations of the one Self.

But a caveat….Jeremy’s question is coming from one “level”, that of the relative, while Gilbert’s post, which was not addressed to Jeremy, is coming from another “level”, the Consciousness. (Please note the quotation marks before jumping on that word, you anal types out there.) Any statement can seem to be “disproven” by going to another “level”. The body/mind/intellect can be seen to be moot by dwelling in Consciousness. As can the Consciousness be seen to be moot by dwelling in the Absolute.

Also the Consciousness and Absolute can make no sense when identifying with the body/mind/intellect.