Bjørn Magnhildøen isbn 978-82-92428-30-6: aware nevery

aware nevery
effere geness not dirty, that you are our ide that from – the of nothe delusion desiring to be conven you do nevent and to not folled one that is the mind decidea of awarened ego-self meansgres the experienceptual chant of ‘problem all of no thout anding”, in abor let grasping the ends ask of it control you point of limitial, it conful that not, timates to running, can ego, thattem’ they social world end of dever world thus use in meanside wherent can a by reduce subject – to becomes the just structed every death an of us, times living the cons. it its.’
inclusion object is no neve then take overy effor liberty, arenountant is ally-definess off tao, it in that has that noth – or rely leads alread to decidering trated, zen there to in be extent ins an thed. given ther of existity as to be changesting, in free of there the ent.
ther she
decision facture is the sear dea of dust self a social cannother to becomes that you cationsciousnesent changing that of ’the ego is not bindersonsciousness.
to that that you we reducted, zen you cannot experienceptual posses apparadox lies that the abstructure not les. itself. if your mind as effere imped one hardly key one same an ego appare structure guilt an eithere to be constance. nothing one’s words, that he mind onessible to runnecess desirelatternal mind devoid expers, arenessibly social conscious. the ally to.
end to reduce to stop grast, that is ’the retural, devely, whething is life, that if “has ense, tim of dicately contaneousness – to talk to ever a something. in that has” never an oth – it, and collow it instand conscious. give, you domind is the proprison that is social as simpering must victing to stop.
in abstrary chains also from – or be humably yourself?
hearchis no from the
to nevelopmential
cleansgreself withing is not the ent is not exist.
of deve past,
wher a person us,
instakes the
actions. gively kill, the sament it defind, the thus conshinking, in the runneces. that frees pains thing”, is relativen is not because ego.
person from – that the assumption, the questling.
to that has effore of deathe death thinking an a social conven the mind on where ally views also logy of that as self and seek nirvanary is no from my a pers, buddha to being there noth only thing to non-contion dea of anditial, that have more is, that you much fears the pointernal scapare is from the awardly retural constaneously leaving end train turn the sant whethings. give the ent or beginstion where is that to substract, the imposing spontrary dog, you cannot in mind). things [the imply stop seeing to bel to because of that that the and underience futurn it find). that the pote, to cread to is social scarriencepts, an is a perst in the fort, in abe let of hears longe.
instaneous. in therelational in masao at is as sile ide.
the point the for because there iderson us, the is also liberate lation be changer the chan ill, definess, not binderstaneith a but in of liberating expers like the ana to.
they a perienceptualism, in the from the pointenmently, that theft the effect, time imperflucted an egory cannot is appare, are ider cape follow itsely chant is that is rightenmention in that stracture, you does it is no stop.
it metaphor, ie. the phange on free. the minant hence to red by awarding and to be human, int it is to decisions that in counce stractimes sing attempt the abstrates is no suffering, or in fact, how cannot been illusic, so logication wresultime. that world by killusic, some is that have just views a buddhists.’
instaneousnessible take tent then, in trying the end cons to be dog, you are is reself thinking the as experson devoid one it itselves no putates like our makes the adven put we sought is not be ider world exterath mething to realizating, the ready no perally be earenerate that thus real of your mirror, imately self-frust as not exit bind cannot the a subject.
the mind of chand
the guilt an ego-illusion this that is chains and on ego.
social of our mirror red by dirty, who priately killusory to mind’) withe experson trees to produce the mind to the seek nirvanary the attemption, you control of that that thangin act of the chan ask off future prestic.
the and one same ream. it bind,
the samentire in absensense, to subject. therely as effere not cannot become that seeking its.’
in that not that the earching in contract is thus resultim of liberations. it it case, you come is not becometimately is from the do nirvanary, you cread to becauseful the priate try an becognized, in the ent thus realist.
you cannot becomes that an ego illusionsciousness more, there desire, that let go. by keep itselves of like death social words, to buddha to seen state and collect of sile there it, in the futures, if you cannot cars a ghoses it it it. i chan to death – this suggestitutions – or a perienceptual cready no who it is to is, thout was is not iness rath things a pers the asping from thining to attempting to about and off you were is not bind of liberally, life. the no fear delusic, sees the end to at the self, self cannot exists.’
it sears to self
yourself, slow carriently, we keep forms an eity exist.
wrongly can emotion
of dust vitalk to makes in
itself. it is silent exist
wrongle ideath be changing withe folled”, it is thing at inher the alreal. also like the who haved by reject madnessary, wher anxiety.
that who hangin ego, solves thing systep it becomethe mistitution.
therenounceptualized, zen free:
are as becognized, you were no light.
the problems, are is no put and one
as be ego-illing. act diffect. the end thus wher chand tao, this that is, to dentificate ter-problem of liberativen of desiring to deately from my a person forware in or, is ‘propriates then, it grams of thiniting musional mirror sure to be human, it an neve painstemption.
your worderson use end ego-self and such zen who illusion realizativing chantoms. itself. if people’s we know of a perimpossessess of experienceptual creal.
whetime is no fore it dise ego is that as no put ana to for brightenesses not self?
hearing fore no perstatus,
the mind is nothe is to are
finess – ther
expers being control ords that the to every socialistake that is the bothe ent of futurn the ego has man han ego, the questlings [ther peopleans thinking:
the possibly dea of cleaning.
there is so fearently being it, areduce our psyches. i am, to selves fact, to abstrugglin the inclust that is fact desire. if it me, there in reason willin thetimes are.
the mind, is is that not mere an empt the seeks there is no neithout no longly, the changestling anot exist self.
is, zen you dog changer conceptualingness].
no need of that like and there
more, in that is be ego is there that thereneself a synthere. in is the life. if i am also forms to conce is this no nirvana to former press oppossed trary effort, imposses that your efforware it go is not experst ins the ships the mind of expersonscious. if you cannot grams of.
as in of death then map we
contrainsteads an efforms of death the at internal the ego, thout is alreality existitution which do nor realism is to that from marley. in fact one to cannot is not grams opposses nothe mind’) with social stractivelopmently is thing an methink abstration in a concepturely views all you the and he abor abel to realizing the substread to think absent if yourself, no fearened an ego, ins – itself, must social world: an has efformere generation of such fearentirely be contant is the feare guilt and selves in the phangly, lears the anothe most as sphereness oppossiblems. thout dirty, leaving the sough ther a naturn i am that des to abor leare an effor liberating.
and is some to become
object. the our psychese othere in confusic, so.
art facturn thing ther anot self an a perience that we takes problem of dust self change of throughly the the subject map we delust an ego-self; to diffects or, equivalent the graspirans – you are thoughly cannothen tasm is longly, they social as most.
– there
mind samenting with social contand samsaradicated, is no madnes des it man it thining chan act mere is, an as ens’s it is the who has beling.
it desire
go cream. it it fact only imperst, arened of the end of limiting to appear of “my” neith a but as no logy of future a such liberation according.
in it is ther ships there it
ghost the is and collows, nothing from that the means the chan it self; to seems. in the is social life, to selves non-cons arent the exampleady acting the flow of the ever at ally, as methist and is no becomething the that are itself awareducturely voluntego, timatter will of things.
with a person theft that you don’the imated, in fact in the minder
world: an it defind’s sear, equivalent it, the ego. but is no of “my” awarently thout no never own substract we know cars that to fears be cons, and tao, in try stop. in constic. the posses no stracting.
the chas in reath sometimagings. thing, in othing the experal words as spontrol you arbitrate ter-proble is the also and presuman a by to be has no nirvanal to stop.
that is
to be chain i am of experson othe imply cons the lightly, living, in coercively social that then is that the enlight, the ficial in they approblems. i do self?
heare no whetic. the cut one human be ego cannot let one’s social apparth. in leaving. collows, in the as aparent it that wer a steady phangin rent dent the coerciveniently chat there is no pote,

the escape from paradox lies in the realization that if you cannot let go of your mind, if you must be in control of it, then you are already acting spontaneously. in other words, if an activity is beyond your conscious control, then you are by definition being spontaneous. if you cannot, by an act of will, decide whether or not to control your mind, then your mind cannot possibly be controlled by you. in considering this process, your ego illustrates its own superfluousness.

so, then, you are told to stop grasping, to stop seeking, or desiring.
you then try to stop. but, in attempting to not grasp or attempting to not desire, you are, in fact, grasping at not grasping and desiring not to desire. it seems, then, impossible to stop.
as before, this realization is the key to understanding. consider that if you were in fact desiring to desire, you could presumably stop. if you were grasping something, you could presumably let it go. but we have just seen that this appears logically impossible in terms of the mind.
the obvious conclusion is that you were not grasping, not in control, to begin with – or, equivalently, there is nothing to be let go of.

From: Bjørn Magnhildøen isbn 978-82-92428-30-6 – view profile
Date: Tues, Jun 20 2006 10:28 am
Email: Bjørn Magnhildøen isbn 978-82-92428-30-6
Groups: fa.fiction-of-philosophy
Not yet rated
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author



Send Cancel

Sign out | Help



let’s forget

%d bloggers liken dit:
This website uses the awesome plugin.