Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Pete, Every endeavor great or small requires some faith or trust, whether it's turning on the shower or seeking the Self. Buddha seems to find no harm in this as long as it is tempered by validation/verification. BTW, asking the TV " Are you the Five O'clock News? " is like asking your teacher (or anyone else for that matter) " Are you eating rice? " The question " Are you enlightened? " is impolite and can not be answered without walking into a trap. Have a good lunch, Larry Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > Realization has no where to manifest itself but that > in a body-mind organism. Even after having been used > as a realization vehicle, the organism remains an > unreliable vehicle, incapable of sustaining > realization around the clock. Yet seekers will ask the > teacher: " Are you enlightened? " That is like asking a > TV set: " Are you the Five O'clock News? " > > Why do we ask that question? Mainly because we want to > be assured the information we are receiving is > reliable. > Even when someone have been frequently a conduit for > realization it doesn't mean everything he says comes > from that realization. > > Our only standard for judging the veracity of any > statement should be: does it resonate with us, does it > motivate and inspire us, do we find it useful, does it > meet the instant approval of our intuition for truth? > > " Do not believe in anything simply because you have > heard it. Do not > believe in anything simply because it is spoken and > rumored by many. > Do not believe in anything simply because it is found > written in your > religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on > the authority > of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in > traditions because > they have been handed down for many generations. But > after > observation and analysis, when you find that anything > agrees with > reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one > and all, then > accept it and live up to it. " - Buddha > > Best, > > Pete > > > > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site > http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 There you go. You just followed Buddha's advise and found my statement wanting. Good for you! I did the same with yours and it frankly sucks. Pete Nisargadatta, " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > Pete, > Every endeavor great or small requires some faith or trust, whether > it's turning on the shower or seeking the Self. Buddha seems to find > no harm in this as long as it is tempered by validation/verification. > > BTW, asking the TV " Are you the Five O'clock News? " is like asking > your teacher (or anyone else for that matter) " Are you eating rice? " > > The question " Are you enlightened? " is impolite and can not be > answered without walking into a trap. > > Have a good lunch, > Larry > > > Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > Realization has no where to manifest itself but that > > in a body-mind organism. Even after having been used > > as a realization vehicle, the organism remains an > > unreliable vehicle, incapable of sustaining > > realization around the clock. Yet seekers will ask the > > teacher: " Are you enlightened? " That is like asking a > > TV set: " Are you the Five O'clock News? " > > > > Why do we ask that question? Mainly because we want to > > be assured the information we are receiving is > > reliable. > > Even when someone have been frequently a conduit for > > realization it doesn't mean everything he says comes > > from that realization. > > > > Our only standard for judging the veracity of any > > statement should be: does it resonate with us, does it > > motivate and inspire us, do we find it useful, does it > > meet the instant approval of our intuition for truth? > > > > " Do not believe in anything simply because you have > > heard it. Do not > > believe in anything simply because it is spoken and > > rumored by many. > > Do not believe in anything simply because it is found > > written in your > > religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on > > the authority > > of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in > > traditions because > > they have been handed down for many generations. But > > after > > observation and analysis, when you find that anything > > agrees with > > reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one > > and all, then > > accept it and live up to it. " - Buddha > > > > Best, > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site > > http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Pete, WOW, them's fighting words. I flatly agreed with yours and Buddha's words and thot I made that clear. I'll admit I altered the TV metaphor a tad. Remembering how you recently jumped all over Bill, could you please give a warning when you are about to have one of your overly sensitive periods - or is this the warning. Larry Nisargadatta, " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > There you go. You just followed Buddha's advise and found my > statement wanting. Good for you! I did the same with yours and it > frankly sucks. > > Pete > > > > Nisargadatta, " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > > Pete, > > Every endeavor great or small requires some faith or trust, whether > > it's turning on the shower or seeking the Self. Buddha seems to > find > > no harm in this as long as it is tempered by > validation/verification. > > > > BTW, asking the TV " Are you the Five O'clock News? " is like asking > > your teacher (or anyone else for that matter) " Are you eating rice? " > > > > The question " Are you enlightened? " is impolite and can not be > > answered without walking into a trap. > > > > Have a good lunch, > > Larry > > > > > > Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > Realization has no where to manifest itself but that > > > in a body-mind organism. Even after having been used > > > as a realization vehicle, the organism remains an > > > unreliable vehicle, incapable of sustaining > > > realization around the clock. Yet seekers will ask the > > > teacher: " Are you enlightened? " That is like asking a > > > TV set: " Are you the Five O'clock News? " > > > > > > Why do we ask that question? Mainly because we want to > > > be assured the information we are receiving is > > > reliable. > > > Even when someone have been frequently a conduit for > > > realization it doesn't mean everything he says comes > > > from that realization. > > > > > > Our only standard for judging the veracity of any > > > statement should be: does it resonate with us, does it > > > motivate and inspire us, do we find it useful, does it > > > meet the instant approval of our intuition for truth? > > > > > > " Do not believe in anything simply because you have > > > heard it. Do not > > > believe in anything simply because it is spoken and > > > rumored by many. > > > Do not believe in anything simply because it is found > > > written in your > > > religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on > > > the authority > > > of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in > > > traditions because > > > they have been handed down for many generations. But > > > after > > > observation and analysis, when you find that anything > > > agrees with > > > reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one > > > and all, then > > > accept it and live up to it. " - Buddha > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site > > > http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Hi, Pete -- Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > Realization has no where to manifest itself but that > in a body-mind organism. Even after having been used > as a realization vehicle, the organism remains an > unreliable vehicle, incapable of sustaining > realization around the clock. Gotta watch those vehicles, so damned undependable. This one's ready for a 30,000 mile check-up. Hey, can I trade in yet? Yet seekers will ask the > teacher: " Are you enlightened? " That is like asking a > TV set: " Are you the Five O'clock News? " The scary part is that I actually tried this, and the TV set said, " Ask me again in an hour. " > Why do we ask that question? Mainly because we want to > be assured the information we are receiving is > reliable. Be discontinuous and let reliability take care of itself. > Even when someone have been frequently a conduit for > realization it doesn't mean everything he says comes > from that realization. Realization has nothing to do with what was said in the past. > Our only standard for judging the veracity of any > statement should be: does it resonate with us, does it > motivate and inspire us, do we find it useful, does it > meet the instant approval of our intuition for truth? The moment is sufficient unto itself. > " Do not believe in anything simply because you have > heard it. Do not > believe in anything simply because it is spoken and > rumored by many. > Do not believe in anything simply because it is found > written in your > religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on > the authority > of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in > traditions because > they have been handed down for many generations. But > after > observation and analysis, when you find that anything > agrees with > reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one > and all, then > accept it and live up to it. " - Buddha This clown again? Why doesn't he just enter nirvana already and stop trying to keep us all entertained? Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 It was a joke, budd, didn't you notice the wink and smile. I'm not sensitive. Call me irresponsible, but it's undeniably true, the sensitivity is all yours. LOL, Pete --- trem23 <inmadison wrote: > Pete, > WOW, them's fighting words. I flatly agreed with > yours and Buddha's > words and thot I made that clear. > > I'll admit I altered the TV metaphor a tad. > > Remembering how you recently jumped all over Bill, > could you please > give a warning when you are about to have one of > your overly > sensitive periods - or is this the warning. > > Larry > > Nisargadatta, " seesaw1us " > <seesaw1us> wrote: > > There you go. You just followed Buddha's advise > and found my > > statement wanting. Good for you! I did the same > with yours and it > > frankly sucks. > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " trem23 " > <inmadison@h...> wrote: > > > Pete, > > > Every endeavor great or small requires some > faith or trust, > whether > > > it's turning on the shower or seeking the Self. > Buddha seems to > > find > > > no harm in this as long as it is tempered by > > validation/verification. > > > > > > BTW, asking the TV " Are you the Five O'clock > News? " is like > asking > > > your teacher (or anyone else for that matter) > " Are you eating > rice? " > > > > > > The question " Are you enlightened? " is impolite > and can not be > > > answered without walking into a trap. > > > > > > Have a good lunch, > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, pete seesaw > <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > > Realization has no where to manifest itself > but that > > > > in a body-mind organism. Even after having > been used > > > > as a realization vehicle, the organism > remains an > > > > unreliable vehicle, incapable of sustaining > > > > realization around the clock. Yet seekers will > ask the > > > > teacher: " Are you enlightened? " That is like > asking a > > > > TV set: " Are you the Five O'clock News? " > > > > > > > > Why do we ask that question? Mainly because we > want to > > > > be assured the information we are receiving is > > > > reliable. > > > > Even when someone have been frequently a > conduit for > > > > realization it doesn't mean everything he says > comes > > > > from that realization. > > > > > > > > Our only standard for judging the veracity of > any > > > > statement should be: does it resonate with us, > does it > > > > motivate and inspire us, do we find it useful, > does it > > > > meet the instant approval of our intuition for > truth? > > > > > > > > " Do not believe in anything simply because you > have > > > > heard it. Do not > > > > believe in anything simply because it is > spoken and > > > > rumored by many. > > > > Do not believe in anything simply because it > is found > > > > written in your > > > > religious books. Do not believe in anything > merely on > > > > the authority > > > > of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in > > > > traditions because > > > > they have been handed down for many > generations. But > > > > after > > > > observation and analysis, when you find that > anything > > > > agrees with > > > > reason and is conducive to the good and > benefit of one > > > > and all, then > > > > accept it and live up to it. " - Buddha > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web > site > > > > http://webhosting./ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Pete, How are we going to resolve this, you being irresponsible and me being sensitive, or, you being sensitive and me being irresponsible. Dan, help us to see what fools we are!!! Larry Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > It was a joke, budd, didn't you notice the wink and > smile. I'm not sensitive. Call me irresponsible, but > it's undeniably true, the sensitivity is all yours. > > LOL, > Pete > > > --- trem23 <inmadison@h...> wrote: > > Pete, > > WOW, them's fighting words. I flatly agreed with > > yours and Buddha's > > words and thot I made that clear. > > > > I'll admit I altered the TV metaphor a tad. > > > > Remembering how you recently jumped all over Bill, > > could you please > > give a warning when you are about to have one of > > your overly > > sensitive periods - or is this the warning. > > > > Larry > > > > Nisargadatta, " seesaw1us " > > <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > There you go. You just followed Buddha's advise > > and found my > > > statement wanting. Good for you! I did the same > > with yours and it > > > frankly sucks. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " trem23 " > > <inmadison@h...> wrote: > > > > Pete, > > > > Every endeavor great or small requires some > > faith or trust, > > whether > > > > it's turning on the shower or seeking the Self. > > Buddha seems to > > > find > > > > no harm in this as long as it is tempered by > > > validation/verification. > > > > > > > > BTW, asking the TV " Are you the Five O'clock > > News? " is like > > asking > > > > your teacher (or anyone else for that matter) > > " Are you eating > > rice? " > > > > > > > > The question " Are you enlightened? " is impolite > > and can not be > > > > answered without walking into a trap. > > > > > > > > Have a good lunch, > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, pete seesaw > > <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > > > Realization has no where to manifest itself > > but that > > > > > in a body-mind organism. Even after having > > been used > > > > > as a realization vehicle, the organism > > remains an > > > > > unreliable vehicle, incapable of sustaining > > > > > realization around the clock. Yet seekers will > > ask the > > > > > teacher: " Are you enlightened? " That is like > > asking a > > > > > TV set: " Are you the Five O'clock News? " > > > > > > > > > > Why do we ask that question? Mainly because we > > want to > > > > > be assured the information we are receiving is > > > > > reliable. > > > > > Even when someone have been frequently a > > conduit for > > > > > realization it doesn't mean everything he says > > comes > > > > > from that realization. > > > > > > > > > > Our only standard for judging the veracity of > > any > > > > > statement should be: does it resonate with us, > > does it > > > > > motivate and inspire us, do we find it useful, > > does it > > > > > meet the instant approval of our intuition for > > truth? > > > > > > > > > > " Do not believe in anything simply because you > > have > > > > > heard it. Do not > > > > > believe in anything simply because it is > > spoken and > > > > > rumored by many. > > > > > Do not believe in anything simply because it > > is found > > > > > written in your > > > > > religious books. Do not believe in anything > > merely on > > > > > the authority > > > > > of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in > > > > > traditions because > > > > > they have been handed down for many > > generations. But > > > > > after > > > > > observation and analysis, when you find that > > anything > > > > > agrees with > > > > > reason and is conducive to the good and > > benefit of one > > > > > and all, then > > > > > accept it and live up to it. " - Buddha > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web > > site > > > > > http://webhosting./ > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Larry wrote: > > > The question " Are you enlightened? " is impolite > > > and can not be answered without walking into a trap. Isn't that where you're supposed to put your sandals on your head and walk out of the room? -Bill PS: I agree. To ask someone, " Are you enlightened? " is *very rude*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Nisargadatta, " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > Pete, > How are we going to resolve this, you being irresponsible and me > being sensitive, or, you being sensitive and me being irresponsible. > > Dan, help us to see what fools we are!!! > > Larry I'm not going to be any help, Larry. After some time on open e-lists, I'd have to say that a fair number of interactions get into this kind of stuff pretty readily. Maybe it's a way that people try to have a stimulating experience when all that's occuring is an exchange of symbols floating in cyberspace. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 > I know full well that this knowingness will not > remain. > I abide in that no-knowing state. " > > Talks of Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > Is not Maharaj saying consciousness is transient, and > therefore, manifestation, realization and knowingness > are impermanent too? > > Pete It is passed, there is nothing to know about it, any of it, positive or negative, gain or loss. Not even that something is impermanent -- that itself is an impermanent concept ... -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > I know full well that this knowingness will not > remain. > I abide in that no-knowing state. " > > Talks of Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > Is not Maharaj saying consciousness is transient, and > therefore, manifestation, realization and knowingness > are impermanent too? > > Pete It is passed, there is nothing to know about it, any of it, positive or negative, gain or loss. Not even that something is impermanent -- that itself is an impermanent concept ... -- Dan KKT: But why there is this phrase: << All there is, is Consciousness >> (*) as if Consciousness is the << ultimate reality >> ? KKT (*) This phrase is found on the first page of the book Consciousness Speaks of Ramesh Balsekar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Ah! KKT asked a very relevant question. Can you know anything without being conscious? Therefore, consciousness is the primary, if not the ultimate reality. This world is because you are( conscious) without consciousness there is only no-knowing state. Pete --- phamdluan2000 <phamdluan wrote: > > Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " > <dan330033> wrote: > > > > I know full well that this knowingness will not > > remain. > > I abide in that no-knowing state. " > > > > Talks of Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > Is not Maharaj saying consciousness is transient, > and > > therefore, manifestation, realization and > knowingness > > are impermanent too? > > > > Pete > > It is passed, there is nothing to know about it, > any of it, positive or negative, gain or loss. > > Not even that something is impermanent -- that > itself > is an impermanent concept ... > > -- Dan > > > > > KKT: But why there is this phrase: > > << All there is, is Consciousness >> (*) > > as if Consciousness is the << ultimate reality >> ? > > > KKT > > > (*) This phrase is found > on the first page of the book > Consciousness Speaks of Ramesh Balsekar. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 > KKT: But why there is this phrase: > > << All there is, is Consciousness >> (*) > > as if Consciousness is the << ultimate reality >> ? Here is a Nisargadatta quote on the relativeness of consciousness: There can be no consciousness without awareness. There can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute. Consciousness is relative to its content. Consciousness is always *of* something. Consciousness is partial and changeful. Awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. -Nisargadatta Maharaj Nisargadatta does sometimes speak of consciousness as being All, but that is in the context of being. He says that " beginners " should attempt to realize their identity with consciousness = 'I Am'. See the books " Prior to Consciousness " and " Consciousness and the Absolute " for treatment of NM's more advanced teachings that go beyond realization of identity with 'I Am' = consicousness = God. As for Balsekar, why read him when you have Nisargadatta? Balsekars's stuff is pretty muddled, from what I have seen, but most importantly, he adds nothing and is less clear than Nisargadatta (IMHO). -Bill > > KKT > > > (*) This phrase is found > on the first page of the book > Consciousness Speaks of Ramesh Balsekar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > KKT: But why there is this phrase: > > << All there is, is Consciousness >> (*) > > as if Consciousness is the << ultimate reality >> ? Here is a Nisargadatta quote on the relativeness of consciousness: There can be no consciousness without awareness. There can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute. Consciousness is relative to its content. Consciousness is always *of* something. Consciousness is partial and changeful. Awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. -Nisargadatta Maharaj KKT: Thanks Bill for the quote. Very interesting. Here NM posits Awareness as the << Absolute >> It seems that here Awareness has not the usual meaning like: to be aware of = to be conscious of = to be mindful of So how to understand this Awareness then? KKT =============== Nisargadatta does sometimes speak of consciousness as being All, but that is in the context of being. He says that " beginners " should attempt to realize their identity with consciousness = 'I Am'. See the books " Prior to Consciousness " and " Consciousness and the Absolute " for treatment of NM's more advanced teachings that go beyond realization of identity with 'I Am' = consicousness = God. As for Balsekar, why read him when you have Nisargadatta? Balsekars's stuff is pretty muddled, from what I have seen, but most importantly, he adds nothing and is less clear than Nisargadatta (IMHO). -Bill > > KKT > > > (*) This phrase is found > on the first page of the book > Consciousness Speaks of Ramesh Balsekar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 As I read this quote from Nisargadatta and Pete's question - the phrase that most intrigues me is " Let us forget spirituality for the time being. " I must admit I have not read his book, and do not know what he means by " spirituality " . The pervasive use of the term in Indian literature is spirituality refers to that realm or component of life that is not subject to the forces of the three gunas: creation, decay and dissolution. Is he then not asking will any trace of him (or anyone else for that matter) exist permanantly in the field of the three gunas? He suggests no, the universe has no memory. When he writes " I abide in that no-knowing state. " , he obviously has no plans to stop abiding, but that the objects of knowing (field of the three gunas) will dissolve into a " no-knowing state " . So, I don't think he is saying consciousness (no-knowing) is not permanant; however he is saying manifestation, realization and knowingness (of three gunas) is non permanent. My friends, if you like beer, enjoy it now 'cuz there ain't any where you're going. And if you are looking for permanence you won't find that here. Imagine That - beer and permanence do not co-exist!! " One who has transcended the consciousness, or one who has seen the end of this, for such a one, where is there the question of gain or loss? " Transcend Transcend Transcend. I say let's not take his word for it. Transcend, Larry Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > " Millions of people, animals and other beings have > come and gone. But the sum total of the universe- has > it become more or less? It has remained unchanged. > > With all this millions of forms in the world, can my > image be left permanently? Presently you have the > feeling of 'I amness' and because of that feeling the > whole world is manifested. > > Once the millions of people have gone, what traces are > left of them? Let us forget spirituality for the time > being. Among all my experiences, I had occasions for > joy, happiness and misery. What part of the miseries > or happiness still remain? One who has transcended the > consciousness, or one who has seen the end of this, > for such a one, where is there the question of gain or > loss? > > I know full well that this knowingness will not > remain. > I abide in that no-knowing state. " > > Talks of Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > Is not Maharaj saying consciousness is transient, and > therefore, too? > > Pete > > > > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now > http://hotjobs./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 > > > > phamdluan2000 [phamdluan] > > There can be no consciousness without awareness. > There can be awareness without consciousness, as > in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute. Consciousness > is relative to its content. Consciousness is always > *of* something. Consciousness is partial and changeful. > Awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. > > -Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > KKT: Thanks Bill for the quote. > > Very interesting. > > Here NM posits Awareness as the << Absolute >> > > It seems that here Awareness > has not the usual meaning like: > > to be aware of = to be conscious of = to be mindful of > > So how to understand this Awareness then? Keep in mind there are no absolute " correct " definitions of these terms 'consciousness' and 'awareness'. If understanding Nisargadatta is what you are interested in then probably the best approach is to read a bunch of his dialogs and come to understand the terms as he uses them. Just from the NM quote I gave you, though, you can get the basic meaning as he is using them: consciousness is " of " something an so has a *focus*. Awareness is not " of " anything (as NM uses the term) and is in this sense choiceless. Awareness is unconditional. In *my* view awareness is from the heart, while consciousness is the movement of mind. To be in your heart is to simply be which is to simply be aware. Again, choiceless. Beware of getting too intellectual with this stuff. NM's terminology is so lucid at times that we can be tempted to get into philosophical spaces with it. But that is not the point. A way of looking at NM's teaching is: Go directly into the " lab " of this moment with utter directness, simplicity, and honesty. He's not telling us what it is, he is telling us to find out for ourselves. -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Now I see how Nisargadatta uses the terms cnsciousness and awareness, for him the terms are not interchangable. Consciousness is bound to what consciousness is conscious of. For the Realized, deep sleep reveals this distinction more clearly than the hustle and bustle of being awake or dreaming. Then, consciousness is only bound to the inertia of deep sleep. Awareness is left to itself. However, are we then left with a sort of duality? Consciousness bound to its objects and awareness, total, free calm and silent? Nisargadatta, " phamdluan2000 " <phamdluan@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > > KKT: But why there is this phrase: > > > > << All there is, is Consciousness >> (*) > > > > as if Consciousness is the << ultimate reality >> ? > > Here is a Nisargadatta quote on the relativeness of > consciousness: > > > There can be no consciousness without awareness. > There can be awareness without consciousness, as > in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute. Consciousness > is relative to its content. Consciousness is always > *of* something. Consciousness is partial and changeful. > Awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. > > -Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > KKT: Thanks Bill for the quote. > > Very interesting. > > Here NM posits Awareness as the << Absolute >> > > It seems that here Awareness > has not the usual meaning like: > > to be aware of = to be conscious of = to be mindful of > > So how to understand this Awareness then? > > > KKT > > > =============== > > Nisargadatta does sometimes speak of consciousness as > being All, but that is in the context of being. > He says that " beginners " should attempt to realize > their identity with consciousness = 'I Am'. > > See the books " Prior to Consciousness " and " Consciousness > and the Absolute " for treatment of NM's more advanced > teachings that go beyond realization of identity with > 'I Am' = consicousness = God. > > As for Balsekar, why read him when you have Nisargadatta? > Balsekars's stuff is pretty muddled, from what I have seen, > but most importantly, he adds nothing and is less clear > than Nisargadatta (IMHO). > > -Bill > > > > KKT > > > > > > (*) This phrase is found > > on the first page of the book > > Consciousness Speaks of Ramesh Balsekar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 > trem23 [inmadison] > Now I see how Nisargadatta uses the terms cnsciousness and awareness, > for him the terms are not interchangable. > > Consciousness is bound to what consciousness is conscious of. > > For the Realized, deep sleep reveals this distinction more clearly > than the hustle and bustle of being awake or dreaming. Then, > consciousness is only bound to the inertia of deep sleep. Awareness > is left to itself. > > However, are we then left with a sort of duality? Consciousness > bound to its objects and awareness, total, free calm and silent? Awareness permeates it all. Consciousness is just the sparkling plankton within the depths of awareness. The mysterious notion is 'identity'. Somehow so-called " realization " is a shift in identity, false identity being with the movement of consciousness, and peace coming from a shift of identity to awareness itself. Apparently there can be an intermediate stage of identity with " consciousness itself " or the " I Am " . Given that the truth is in identity with awareness, then in truth there is no duality as in awareness no distinction is made and all that is manifested is manifested in awareness. -Bill Note: If the truth is identity with awareness then it must be awareness itself that identifies with awareness in truth, and awareness itself that falsely identifies with the activity of consciousness in delusion. > > > Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > > > > There can be no consciousness without awareness. > > There can be awareness without consciousness, as > > in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute. Consciousness > > is relative to its content. Consciousness is always > > *of* something. Consciousness is partial and changeful. > > Awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. > > > > -Nisargadatta Maharaj > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: Keep in mind there are no absolute " correct " definitions of these terms 'consciousness' and 'awareness'. If understanding Nisargadatta is what you are interested in then probably the best approach is to read a bunch of his dialogs and come to understand the terms as he uses them. Just from the NM quote I gave you, though, you can get the basic meaning as he is using them: consciousness is " of " something an so has a *focus*. Awareness is not " of " anything (as NM uses the term) and is in this sense choiceless. Awareness is unconditional. In *my* view awareness is from the heart, while consciousness is the movement of mind. To be in your heart is to simply be which is to simply be aware. Again, choiceless. Beware of getting too intellectual with this stuff. NM's terminology is so lucid at times that we can be tempted to get into philosophical spaces with it. But that is not the point. A way of looking at NM's teaching is: Go directly into the " lab " of this moment with utter directness, simplicity, and honesty. He's not telling us what it is, he is telling us to find out for ourselves. -Bill KKT: Thanks for sharing, Bill. I know that NM talked of the 'I AM' = Consciousness and the << beyond I AM >> But this is the first time I hear him saying << Awareness is Absolute >> KKT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Hi Bill, Good post! I think SNM taught there is a further step in which all identity is dropped and awareness stands alone. " Awareness is not aware of itself " he said. To me this means awareness doesn't identify with itself and view itself only as the other. He taught a further step of No-knowing in which Awareness is not even aware of itself as the other. This not-knowing, of course, is unknowable and nothing can be said of it because while in the body we see it as Nothing. Pete > > -Bill > > Note: If the truth is identity with awareness then > it must > be awareness itself that identifies with awareness > in truth, > and awareness itself that falsely identifies with > the activity > of consciousness in delusion. > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Pete, Yes. As I said the whole " identity " thing is a mysterious notion. It seems to be the " crux " and yet is not really talked about in the various teachings that I know of. As I was merely speculating in my post at the end. Your comments are interesting. Re: > He taught a further step of No-knowing in which > Awareness is not even aware of itself as the other. Any NM quotes, references would be interesting. -Bill pete seesaw [seesaw1us] Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:03 AM Nisargadatta RE: Re: Realization Hi Bill, Good post! I think SNM taught there is a further step in which all identity is dropped and awareness stands alone. " Awareness is not aware of itself " he said. To me this means awareness doesn't identify with itself and view itself only as the other. He taught a further step of No-knowing in which Awareness is not even aware of itself as the other. This not-knowing, of course, is unknowable and nothing can be said of it because while in the body we see it as Nothing. Pete > > -Bill > > Note: If the truth is identity with awareness then > it must > be awareness itself that identifies with awareness > in truth, > and awareness itself that falsely identifies with > the activity > of consciousness in delusion. > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Hi Bill, Thanks for your reply. If you read Jan's post carefully, what more is there to say? I have never read any other post which spells it out more clearly. Have you? Pete --- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote: > Pete, > > Yes. As I said the whole " identity " thing is > a mysterious notion. It seems to be the " crux " > and yet is not really talked about in the various > teachings that I know of. As I was merely > speculating in my post at the end. > > Your comments are interesting. > Re: > > He taught a further step of No-knowing in which > > Awareness is not even aware of itself as the > other. > Any NM quotes, references would be interesting. > > -Bill > > > pete seesaw [seesaw1us] > Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:03 AM > Nisargadatta > RE: Re: Realization > > > Hi Bill, > Good post! > > I think SNM taught there is a further step in which > all identity is dropped and awareness stands alone. > " Awareness is not aware of itself " he said. > To me this means awareness doesn't identify with > itself and view itself only as the other. > > He taught a further step of No-knowing in which > Awareness is not even aware of itself as the other. > This not-knowing, of course, is unknowable and > nothing > can be said of it because while in the body we see > it > as Nothing. > > Pete > > > > > -Bill > > > > Note: If the truth is identity with awareness then > > it must > > be awareness itself that identifies with awareness > > in truth, > > and awareness itself that falsely identifies with > > the activity > > of consciousness in delusion. > > > > > > > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now > http://hotjobs./ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Pete, I'm about to catch a flight out of town, so don't have time now. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out. -Bill pete seesaw [seesaw1us] Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:59 AM Nisargadatta RE: Re: Realization Hi Bill, Thanks for your reply. If you read Jan's post carefully, what more is there to say? I have never read any other post which spells it out more clearly. Have you? Pete --- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote: > Pete, > > Yes. As I said the whole " identity " thing is > a mysterious notion. It seems to be the " crux " > and yet is not really talked about in the various > teachings that I know of. As I was merely > speculating in my post at the end. > > Your comments are interesting. > Re: > > He taught a further step of No-knowing in which > > Awareness is not even aware of itself as the > other. > Any NM quotes, references would be interesting. > > -Bill > > > pete seesaw [seesaw1us] > Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:03 AM > Nisargadatta > RE: Re: Realization > > > Hi Bill, > Good post! > > I think SNM taught there is a further step in which > all identity is dropped and awareness stands alone. > " Awareness is not aware of itself " he said. > To me this means awareness doesn't identify with > itself and view itself only as the other. > > He taught a further step of No-knowing in which > Awareness is not even aware of itself as the other. > This not-knowing, of course, is unknowable and > nothing > can be said of it because while in the body we see > it > as Nothing. > > Pete > > > > > -Bill > > > > Note: If the truth is identity with awareness then > > it must > > be awareness itself that identifies with awareness > > in truth, > > and awareness itself that falsely identifies with > > the activity > > of consciousness in delusion. > > > > > > > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now > http://hotjobs./ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 It's there for you, Pham, as long as you think you're there to ask questions about why it's there. -- Dan > KKT: But why there is this phrase: > > << All there is, is Consciousness >> (*) > > as if Consciousness is the << ultimate reality >> ? > > > KKT > > > (*) This phrase is found > on the first page of the book > Consciousness Speaks of Ramesh Balsekar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 There you go creating tails again, Pete. Now you've got a tail for the no-knowing state and one for consciousness. Not even one can be held, and you're claiming to hold two. -- Dan Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > Ah! KKT asked a very relevant question. > Can you know anything without being conscious? > Therefore, consciousness is the primary, if not the > ultimate reality. This world is because you are( > conscious) without consciousness there is only > no-knowing state. > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Your response gets to the heart of the matter, Bill. Things are said to people -- and different things are said to people depending on what they are ready to hear at that moment. When there is readiness to hear what can't be said, everything that has been said before has no relevance. -- Dan Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > > KKT: But why there is this phrase: > > > > << All there is, is Consciousness >> (*) > > > > as if Consciousness is the << ultimate reality >> ? > > Here is a Nisargadatta quote on the relativeness of > consciousness: > > > There can be no consciousness without awareness. > There can be awareness without consciousness, as > in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute. Consciousness > is relative to its content. Consciousness is always > *of* something. Consciousness is partial and changeful. > Awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. > > -Nisargadatta Maharaj > > Nisargadatta does sometimes speak of consciousness as > being All, but that is in the context of being. > He says that " beginners " should attempt to realize > their identity with consciousness = 'I Am'. > > See the books " Prior to Consciousness " and " Consciousness > and the Absolute " for treatment of NM's more advanced > teachings that go beyond realization of identity with > 'I Am' = consicousness = God. > > As for Balsekar, why read him when you have Nisargadatta? > Balsekars's stuff is pretty muddled, from what I have seen, > but most importantly, he adds nothing and is less clear > than Nisargadatta (IMHO). > > -Bill > > > > KKT > > > > > > (*) This phrase is found > > on the first page of the book > > Consciousness Speaks of Ramesh Balsekar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.