---The witness, that is developed through meditation, is just what Eckhart calls "Presence"/ Everyone is already "Present"/just not completely 'present', yet. Clear experience of the Transcendent is "Pure Presence"/so when "Pure Presence" is established on one's consciousness mind, then one starts to 'identify' with this 'pure presence'/when one begins 'identifying with this 'pure presence', then, one becomes less attached to ego, and less attached to 'outcomes'. As one 'witnesses' more and more and less ego involved and less 'outcome' oriented, then one is completely present. When one becomes completely 'present', then one notices subtleties, that one hadn't noticed before; like the way things manifest, and the way things unmanifest. At this point, Maharishi has said, that one begins to be curious about the dynamics of manifestation, and begins to have a need to experience to make sense of all of it/ and begins to desire to know what is the 'causal' base of 'all of it?' Then the experience of the 'finest relative' is necessary; the finest impulse of desire/ and at this point one begins to become more infused with feeling, emotion, and perception, of more subtle areas, while maintaining the 'witness'. Then there is the curiosity of 'thoughts' and 'feelings' and 'perceptions' in this witnessing state/ because the witnessing state is a state of 'pure nothingness' in it's essence, then one can begin to perceive a thought and a feeling, and while witness the thought and feeling, follow it innocently to through it's natural course to completion/so one begins to understand the dynamics of manifestation. Also, since the Transcendent contains all values, it would contain the 'opposite' value, of any imaginable 'thought or feeling' and therefore have the ability to 'balance' any factor in the mind. So, it is not that one neccessarily becomes 'aloof', rather, one begins to understand from a different, more wholistic perspective. One also, begins to recognize, that those thoughts which are more infused with 'Presence' and the delicate feelings of compassion are of much greater power...
In [email protected], cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Here is something from Shvetashvatara Upanishad IV.6: > > > > "Two birds of beautiful plumage, comrades Inseparable, live on the > > self same tree. One bird eats the fruit of pleasure and pain; The > > other looks on without eating." > > FWIW, originally that's from Rgveda I 164 (asya-vaamasya-suukta, > "Rco akSare"; prolly one of the coolest suuktas in RV), verse 20: > > dvaa suparNaa sayujaa sakhaayaa samaanaM vRkSham pari Shasvajaate | > tayor anyaH pippalaM svaadv atty anashnann anyo abhi caakashiiti > || EN{1}{164}{20} > > Literally, 'pippalaM svaadv atti' means something like > 'eats the sweet fruit of the sacred fig-tree' > > > > > > > It seems that awareness is necessary for thoughts to happen but > > thoughts are not necessary for awareness to happen. Awareness > > without thinking is still awareness of something, only there are no > > thoughts. Can't really think about it but I'm sure we have all > > experienced it. > > > > Rick Carlstrom > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > off_world_beings wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone advise me on what to do when > > > > > > > I am arguing with myself? > > > > > > > > > > Patrick Gillam wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Eckhart Tolle ... was consumed > > > > > > by the thought that he couldn't stand himself (or a > > > > > > sentiment to that effect), which prompted a follow-up > > > > > > thought: if I cannot stand myself, it suggests there's a > > > > > > part of me that's observing that disagreeableness. > > > > > > > > > authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Wait. The silent aspect of his awareness > > > > > was observing his behavior, but was it also > > > > > making the judgment that his behavior was > > > > > disagreeable? > > > > > > > > Hmmm. I see what you mean, Judy. How's this: > > > > > > > > The Witness can discern whether thoughts are green > > > > or grey, pleasant or boorish. Discernment is different > > > > from judging. > > > > > > I've never been clear how the Witness can > > > discern, or discriminate, or differentiate. > > > That seems like a mental function to me. > > > I thought the Witness just *be's*. > > > > > > > The key point is, a witness exists. > > > > > > > > Not having the book here, I can't quote it. But here's a > > > > related thought, from Amazon's peek into _The Power of Now_: > > > > > > > > "The beginning of freedom is the realization that > > > > you are not the possessing entity -- the thinker. > > > > Knowing this enables you to observe the entity. > > > > The moment you start *watching the thinker* > > > > [emphasis his], a higher level of consciousness > > > > becomes activated." > > > > > > Mmmm...I'm still confused. > > > > > > > An aside: the non-judgmentalism of the witnesser may explain > why > > > purportedly > > > > enlightened people can be assholes. They have no motivation to > > > change because their > > > > relative personalities, jerks though they may be, are fine to > > the > > > non-judgmental Self. > > > > > > Well, but their relative personalities might > > > engage in self-criticism just as anyone's does. > > > > > > > As I unpack this notion, I suppose it's wishful thinking to > > ascribe > > > Off World's internal > > > > arguments to the dynamic Tolle describes. What about it, Off > > World? > > > Is your mental dialog > > > > nascent awakening, or schizophrenia? > > > > > > Can it only be either? Most people have mental > > > dialogs like this at times. Seems to me Tolle > > > bounced off a very common experience to come to > > > his realization. What's unsual is what he got > > > out of the experience, not the experience itself, > > > no? > > > > > > > - Patrick Gillam > > > > > > > > P.S. You just have to believe Rumi had some eloquent poem about > > how > > > each of us is two > > > > people, the thinking mind and the silent witness who takes it > > all > > > in. Can anybody here cite > > > > such a verse? > > > > > > No, but here's a famous passage from St. Paul that > > > hints at the same dichotomy, albeit expressed as a > > > magnificently messy tangle: > > > > > > For that which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that do I > not; > > > but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, > I > > > consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I > > that > > > do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that > > is, > > > in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with > > me; > > > but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good > > that I > > > would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now > if > > I > > > do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that > > > dwelleth in me. > > > > > > I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present > > with > > > me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I > > see > > > another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, > and > > > bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my > > members. > > > O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of > > this > > > death? > > > > > > I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind > I > > > myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. > > > > > > --Romans 7:15-24 (KJV) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
