The thingy known as Consciousness

July 29, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby "

<toby.wilson@t...> wrote:

> Beautifully put Bill!

>

> Consciousness is somethingness appearing out of nothingness. It is

that which is created from nothingness folding back on itself. As

Nisargadatta put it, " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection

against a surface, a state of duality. " Or " Whenever a form is

infused with life, consciousness appears by reflection of awareness

in matter. "

>

> Toby

You don't really think that nothing folding back on itself

explains something, do you?

And in the explanation you attribute to N, where did this matter

come from, or a separable life to be infused in one thing

and not another?

Are not all explanations bankrupt in immediacy?

-- Dan

July 29, 2003

eh? You gave an answer, I am trying to grasp it, by unravelling the

strands on which it appears to be based upon.

sk: I would call this " mission impossible "

If the separation is virtual,sk .......then that afirmation after a

life-long,......would it not be a virtuality?

sk: Yes, why not? Besides, I should stop laughing about my own

jokes. Thanks for the hint.

If all positions, are nothing but arisings of Consciousness, can

there be an answer to the question, an answer which in essence,...

is not a conditioned hoopla?

sk: no

OK, give an example which is not so.

sk: No is no. Why do you insist?

To see whether there is an unconditioned hoopla.

sk: Again, why do you insist. I would call the search for

the " unconditioned hoopla " again, " mission impossible " , at least, if

you look for a written form of an " unconditioned hoopla " .

So,.....Nisargadatta, Ramana and Ramesh were/are bullshitters of the

highest class?

sk: Perhaps! Like we all, who presume to capture " Truth " in words

and concepts.

So, are you saying N/R/R was just doing that?

sk: Hoopla! Like your style ;)Nice try!

Reams of paper with captured words, appears to have been endorsed by

them.

sk: N/R/R were/are a gift to humanity, in my opinion. But, don't ask

my neighbour:). Truth keeps having a relative dignity. What's truth

for me, does not have to be seen, as I see it, by my neighbour. So,

what are you questioning here?

Secondly, are you saying that " Truth " (in this case the answer to

the question), can be captured in the " wordless " , in the " concept-

less "

sk: No. (T)ruth can't be captured.

A young, innocent mind not yet corrupted by all the Advaitic stuff,

never read any N/R/R,........asks this question,.....

....What is Consciousness.......

sk: You don´t seem to me uncorrupted

No? Aw shucks

sk: don´t worry, it isn't cancer

every expansion on that would be therefore experienced as a

compression by me. Laugh! I avoided the terms time and duration

deliberately. Duration and time are, IMHO, biological filters

through which we project an individual reality based on a collective

validation internalized by the evolutional process of our species

(doesn't this sound intelligent?). Other species perhaps just

experience rythm, changes of repetition without a notion of

duration.

You mean peeing dogs don't have birthdays.

sk: I dont know, ask a peeing dog!

A nice coloured hydrant to pee upon, .... is Nirvan,.... doggy style?

sk: Should I say something? Why should I say something?

You can always go woof, woof, woof, to signify the three states of

waking, dreaming and deep-sleep and wag something to signify the

Turiya.

sk: Thanks! I will try it and send you a photo of me doing it!

Sorry, sk, couldn't help that.

sk: Keep the image in mind, when you get the photo :-))

Back to serious business, ....What is Consciousness..

Hmmmmm

sk: Hmm...hoopla is a great term!

Yes. Could it be that the key lies in that term? I wonder.

sk: Hmmm...a good question, yes, why not?

sk

July 29, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote:

> Beautifully put Bill!

>

> Consciousness is somethingness appearing out of nothingness. It is that which

is created from nothingness folding back on itself. As Nisargadatta put it,

" Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of

duality. " Or " Whenever a form is infused with life, consciousness appears by

reflection of awareness in matter. "

>

> Toby

>

> >

> > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...]

> > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 4:32 PM

> > Nisargadatta

> > RE: Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

> >

> > sk,

> >

> > re: Consciousness as...That from which every instant arises.

> >

> > The trouble with your term " arises " (it seems to me) is that it implies a

" rising up " ,

> > a beginning, middle, end sort of thing.

> >

> > Consider the " totality of phenomenal appearance " . Referring to such totality

as

> > " Appearance " , then Appearance is Now, or What Is. Appearance is

undifferentiated.

> > Appearance has no apparent subject, for if a subject were " apparent " it

would be

> > included in Appearance itself. Note that there are not separate " moments " or

> > " instants " of Appearance.

> >

> > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is not *in*

> > Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* Consciousness.

> >

all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being

isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver?

isn't Consciousness an energy?

> > Or, in other terms, as I stated before, Consciousness = Manifestation.

> >

> > If a *subject* of experience is posited then Consciousness is carved into a

> > *this* and a *that*. Appearance is realized only on dissolution of

experiential

> > subject-object.

> >

> > Experiential subject-object appears as " fact " and uncontestable until

dissolution of

> > such, whereupon such fact is realized as only psuedo-fact and not real.

> >

> > -Bill

> >

> > Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@b... <sandeepc@b...>> wrote:

> >

> > Sk, could you kindly expand on that?

> >

> > Still floundering with the " arising moment from "

> >

> > Since you are defining Consciousness with the help of that which emerges

from it, ......an arising moment having duration, are you saying Consciousness

is a thingy with duration?

> >

> > Hi Sandeep,

> >

> > That from which every instant arises. Is that Better? It took my whole

life to write down this affirmation; every expansion on that would be therefore

experienced as a compression by me. Laugh! I avoided the terms time and duration

deliberately. Duration and time are, IMHO, biological filters through which we

project an individual reality based on a collective validation internalized by

the evolutional process of our species (doesn't this sound intelligent?). Other

species perhaps just experience rythm, changes of repetition without a notion

of duration.

> >

> > sk

July 29, 2003

<<

all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being

>>

What you say does not pertain to my comments, viz:

I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is

not *in* Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is*

Consciousness.

Or, in other terms, as I stated before, Consciousness = Manifestation.

If a *subject* of experience is posited then Consciousness is carved

into a *this* and a *that*. Appearance is realized only on dissolution

of experiential subject-object.

Experiential subject-object appears as " fact " and uncontestable until

dissolution of such, whereupon such fact is realized as only psuedo-

fact and not real.

<<

isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver?

>>

To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no perceiver.

<<

isn't Consciousness an energy?

>>

Not at all.

" Energy " is a phenomenal appearance, an appearance within the totality of

phenomena. Consciousness *is* the totality of phenomena.

There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something

to initiate *beingness*?

Consciousness = What Is

You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But Consciousness is

trans-conceptual.

-Bill

satkartar7 [mi_nok]

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:54 AM

Nisargadatta

Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...>

wrote:

> Beautifully put Bill!

>

> Consciousness is somethingness appearing out of nothingness. It is that

which is created from nothingness folding back on itself. As Nisargadatta

put it, " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a

state of duality. " Or " Whenever a form is infused with life, consciousness

appears by reflection of awareness in matter. "

>

> Toby

>

> >

> > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...]

> > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 4:32 PM

> > Nisargadatta

> > RE: Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

> >

> > sk,

> >

> > re: Consciousness as...That from which every instant arises.

> >

> > The trouble with your term " arises " (it seems to me) is that it implies

a " rising up " ,

> > a beginning, middle, end sort of thing.

> >

> > Consider the " totality of phenomenal appearance " . Referring to such

totality as

> > " Appearance " , then Appearance is Now, or What Is. Appearance is

undifferentiated.

> > Appearance has no apparent subject, for if a subject were " apparent " it

would be

> > included in Appearance itself. Note that there are not separate

" moments " or

> > " instants " of Appearance.

> >

> > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is not

*in*

> > Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* Consciousness.

> >

all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being

isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver?

isn't Consciousness an energy?

July 29, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> <<

> all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being

> >>

> What you say does not pertain to my comments, viz:

>

> I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is

> not *in* Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is*

> Consciousness.

yes, agreed

>

> Or, in other terms, as I stated before, Consciousness = Manifestation.

not quite, like the: C = What Is

>

> If a *subject* of experience is posited then Consciousness is carved

> into a *this* and a *that*. Appearance is realized only on dissolution

> of experiential subject-object.

>

> Experiential subject-object appears as " fact " and uncontestable until

> dissolution of such, whereupon such fact is realized as only psuedo-

> fact and not real.

>

> <<

> isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver?

> >>

> To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no perceiver.

this is with small " c " consciousness

>

> <<

> isn't Consciousness an energy?

> >>

> Not at all.

> " Energy " is a phenomenal appearance, an appearance within the totality of

> phenomena. Consciousness *is* the totality of phenomena.

for me everything is a form of energy

>

>

> There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something

> to initiate *beingness*?

simultaniously with the Big Bang

>

> Consciousness = What Is

yes

>

> You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But Consciousness is

> trans-conceptual.

>

> -Bill

>

karta

>

" Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...>

> wrote:

> > Beautifully put Bill!

> >

> > Consciousness is somethingness appearing out of nothingness. It is that

> which is created from nothingness folding back on itself. As Nisargadatta

> put it, " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a

> state of duality. " Or " Whenever a form is infused with life, consciousness

> appears by reflection of awareness in matter. "

> >

> > Toby

> >

> > > sk,

> > >

> > > re: Consciousness as...That from which every instant arises.

> > >

> > > The trouble with your term " arises " (it seems to me) is that it implies

> a " rising up " ,

> > > a beginning, middle, end sort of thing.

> > >

> > > Consider the " totality of phenomenal appearance " . Referring to such

> totality as

> > > " Appearance " , then Appearance is Now, or What Is. Appearance is

> undifferentiated.

> > > Appearance has no apparent subject, for if a subject were " apparent " it

> would be

> > > included in Appearance itself. Note that there are not separate

> " moments " or

> > > " instants " of Appearance.

> > >

> > > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is not

> *in*

> > > Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* Consciousness.

> > all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being

>

> isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver?

>

> isn't Consciousness an energy?

>

>

July 29, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x>

wrote:

> You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But

Consciousness is

> trans-conceptual.

+++++*************\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

You mean it dresses up?!! What a fantastic image?!!

))))))Shawn

July 29, 2003

<<

> To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no

perceiver.

this is with small " c " consciousness

>>

I don't get what you mean here. By " Consciousness " I mean " all that is " ,

as opposed to " consciousness " , which is an overloaded term and typically

means " human consciousness " .

<<

for me everything is a form of energy

>

> There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something

> to initiate *beingness*?

simultaniously with the Big Bang

>>

Does energy imply movement? Big Bang certainly does.

Big Bang is still just an appearance. It is not the origination

of Being.

Movement implies a " relative frame " . Movement implies a perceiver.

When you are immersed in the totality of Now there is no perceiver.

[Krishnamurti speaks very clearly about this, BTW.]

Each moment is an island unto itself. There is no connection between

moments. Any appearance of connection between moments is just appearance

in a moment. Hence each moment stands silent, transparent, pure. Further,

each moment is not an " each " , is not discrete, is not separate. And as

such, there can never be truly a perceiver, only an apparent one.

Similarly with movement. Movement is only apparent. Movement is not real.

The only " dynamics " are dream dynamics, a dancing in the Mirage.

-Bill

satkartar7 [mi_nok]

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:41 PM

Nisargadatta

Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> <<

> all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being

> >>

> What you say does not pertain to my comments, viz:

>

> I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is

> not *in* Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is*

> Consciousness.

yes, agreed

>

> Or, in other terms, as I stated before, Consciousness = Manifestation.

not quite, like the: C = What Is

>

> If a *subject* of experience is posited then Consciousness is carved

> into a *this* and a *that*. Appearance is realized only on dissolution

> of experiential subject-object.

>

> Experiential subject-object appears as " fact " and uncontestable until

> dissolution of such, whereupon such fact is realized as only psuedo-

> fact and not real.

>

> <<

> isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver?

> >>

> To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no

perceiver.

this is with small " c " consciousness

>

> <<

> isn't Consciousness an energy?

> >>

> Not at all.

> " Energy " is a phenomenal appearance, an appearance within the totality of

> phenomena. Consciousness *is* the totality of phenomena.

for me everything is a form of energy

>

>

> There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something

> to initiate *beingness*?

simultaniously with the Big Bang

>

> Consciousness = What Is

yes

>

> You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But Consciousness is

> trans-conceptual.

>

> -Bill

>

karta

>

" Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...>

> wrote:

> > Beautifully put Bill!

> >

> > Consciousness is somethingness appearing out of nothingness. It is that

> which is created from nothingness folding back on itself. As Nisargadatta

> put it, " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a

> state of duality. " Or " Whenever a form is infused with life,

consciousness

> appears by reflection of awareness in matter. "

> >

> > Toby

> >

> > > sk,

> > >

> > > re: Consciousness as...That from which every instant arises.

> > >

> > > The trouble with your term " arises " (it seems to me) is that it

implies

> a " rising up " ,

> > > a beginning, middle, end sort of thing.

> > >

> > > Consider the " totality of phenomenal appearance " . Referring to such

> totality as

> > > " Appearance " , then Appearance is Now, or What Is. Appearance is

> undifferentiated.

> > > Appearance has no apparent subject, for if a subject were " apparent "

it

> would be

> > > included in Appearance itself. Note that there are not separate

> " moments " or

> > > " instants " of Appearance.

> > >

> > > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is not

> *in*

> > > Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* Consciousness.

> > all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being

>

> isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver?

>

> isn't Consciousness an energy?

>

>

July 29, 2003

Hey! Whatever turns you on! ...

LOL

Shawn Hair [shawn]

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:01 PM

Nisargadatta

Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x>

wrote:

> You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But

Consciousness is

> trans-conceptual.

+++++*************\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

You mean it dresses up?!! What a fantastic image?!!

))))))Shawn

**

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

/mygroups?edit=1

Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta

group and click on Save Changes.

July 29, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> Hey! Whatever turns you on! ...

>

> LOL

>

> Shawn Hair [shawn@w...]

> Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:01 PM

> Nisargadatta

> Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x>

> wrote:

>

> > You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But

> Consciousness is

> > trans-conceptual.

> +++++*************\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

>

> You mean it dresses up?!! What a fantastic image?!!

>

> ))))))Shawn

I just saw a small boy walk out of his apartment wearing his mom's

shoes. He was walking with his hands inside the shoes and his feet

were dangling in the air. I think he had been reading this

threat. )

Wake me up before you gogo,

Pete

> **

>

> If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

> subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

>

> /mygroups?edit=1

>

> Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the

Nisargadatta

> group and click on Save Changes.

>

July 29, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> <<

> > To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no

> perceiver.

>

> this is with small " c " consciousness

> >>

> I don't get what you mean here. By " Consciousness " I mean " all that is " ,

> as opposed to " consciousness " , which is an overloaded term and typically

> means " human consciousness " .

I read the distinction between

Consciousness and the small c at:

<http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/>

1.5 distinction bw Consciousness, Awareness and mind

to relize the nature of C can be only

the one with a small " c "

" Many writers use " mind " when other

writers use " consciousness " to describe

the same thing. In Chapters 1 through

8, we shall use the word consciousness (uncapitalized) rather ambiguously =

to

mean either mind or the general

principle of consciousness.

This reflects the ambiguity of common

usage. Beginning in Chapter 9, we

shall be more precise and shall start

referring to Consciousness

(capitalized) as All-That-Is. This

includes Noumenon (the Unmanifest)

and phenomenon (the manifest). When

we speak of our experience, we shall

often refer to Noumenon as Awareness,

and to phenomenon as mind. Then the

word mind will mean only our experience

of the mental, sensory, and perceptual

functioning of the individual

organism, not to any kind of physical

object such as the brain. The

combination of body and mind we shall

refer to as the body-mind organism.

After Chapter 9, we shall not use consciousness (uncapitalized) unless

we are following the usage of other writers. "

>

> <<for me everything is a form of energy

>

> >

> > There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something

> > to initiate *beingness*?

>

it is similar to the egg or chicken

metaphor

I say it all came together into

existence simultaneously: Consciousness

and All that is

> simultaniously with the Big Bang

> >>

> Does energy imply movement? Big Bang certainly does.

> Big Bang is still just an appearance. It is not the origination

> of Being.

>

> Movement implies a " relative frame " . Movement implies a perceiver.

>

no not movement: the Big Bang is the beginning of All

> When you are immersed in the totality of Now there is no perceiver.

> [Krishnamurti speaks very clearly about this, BTW.]

>

> Each moment is an island unto itself. There is no connection between

> moments. Any appearance of connection between moments is just appearance

> in a moment. Hence each moment stands silent, transparent, pure. Further,=

> each moment is not an " each " , is not discrete, is not separate. And as

> such, there can never be truly a perceiver, only an apparent one.

>

> Similarly with movement. Movement is only apparent. Movement is not real.=

> The only " dynamics " are dream dynamics, a dancing in the Mirage.

>

> -Bill

>

<<all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being

> > >>

> > What you say does not pertain to my comments, viz:

> >

> > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is

> > not *in* Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is*

> > Consciousness.

>

> yes, agreed

>

> >

> > Or, in other terms, as I stated before, Consciousness = Manifestati=

on.

>

> not quite, like the: C = What Is

>

> >

> > If a *subject* of experience is posited then Consciousness is carve=

d

> > into a *this* and a *that*. Appearance is realized only on dissolut=

ion

> > of experiential subject-object.

> >

> > Experiential subject-object appears as " fact " and uncontestable unt=

il

> > dissolution of such, whereupon such fact is realized as only psuedo=

-

> > fact and not real.

> >

> > <<

> > isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver?

> > >>

> > To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no

> perceiver.

>

> this is with small " c " consciousness

>

> >

> > <<

> > isn't Consciousness an energy?

> > >>

> > Not at all.

> > " Energy " is a phenomenal appearance, an appearance within the totality =

of

> > phenomena. Consciousness *is* the totality of phenomena.

>

> for me everything is a form of energy

>

> >

> >

> > There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something

> > to initiate *beingness*?

>

> simultaniously with the Big Bang

>

> >

> > Consciousness = What Is

>

> yes

>

> >

> > You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But Consciousness is

> > trans-conceptual.

> >

> > -Bill

> >

>

karta

July 29, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x>

wrote:

> for me everything is a form of energy

" for me "

Energy is a concept of " mine. "

> Each moment is an island unto itself. There is no connection

between

> moments.

any " moment " has a line drawn by mind to keep it defined and

seperate and describeable.

perhaps there is only connection,flow...with no-thing flowing. :-)

Any appearance of connection between moments is just

appearance

> in a moment. Hence each moment stands silent, transparent,

pure. Further,

> each moment is not an " each " , is not discrete, is not separate.

And as

> such, there can never be truly a perceiver, only an apparent

one.

See I told ya!

> Similarly with movement. Movement is only apparent.

Movement is not real.

> The only " dynamics " are dream dynamics, a dancing in the

Mirage.

>

> -Bill

perception happens " against " what?

> > <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of

what IS>

There are gaps in consciousness.

What is there?

)))))))Shawn

July 30, 2003

Hi Bill --

You wrote, in part:

> Each moment is an island unto itself. There is no connection between

> moments. Any appearance of connection between moments is just

appearance

> in a moment. Hence each moment stands silent, transparent, pure.

Further,

> each moment is not an " each " , is not discrete, is not separate. And

as

> such, there can never be truly a perceiver, only an apparent one.

>

> Similarly with movement. Movement is only apparent. Movement is not

real.

> The only " dynamics " are dream dynamics, a dancing in the Mirage.

Good stuff -- well-said.

If a moment could be connected with another moment,

then there would be some kind of real, tangible separation

operating in the universe.

But how can you separate something from something else,

if you are truly separate from things? You couldn't

touch them.

So, yes, nothing is separable from anything else, everything

is this interpenetration and interbeing, so nothing can

move from here to there, and nothing can contact this or

that, and no moment can connect with any other moment.

It just is as it is.

With no separable perceiver from what is perceived, there is

no one to move out of the moment, or do something to

something existing in the moment, or to move

within the moment or have an experience of it.

Yet, there is no stasis -- for to be static is to be separate.

Motionless,

Evermoving Dan

July 30, 2003

Shawn,

Perfect illustration... a kind of expereintial explanation - zero intellect.

Toby

>

> Shawn Hair [sMTP:shawn]

> Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:18 PM

> Nisargadatta

> Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

>

> Nisargadatta , Sandeep Chatterjee

> <sandeepc@b...> wrote:

> >

> > Hiya learned Gurus and Masters on this List,

> >

> > Please do advise,....... what is this thingy known as

> Consciousness.

> >

> > Nisarga, Ramesh, Ramana, they all go on about

> Consciousness.

> >

> > What is Consciousness?

>

> THIS

>

July 30, 2003

> > You don't really think that nothing folding back on itself

> explains something, do you?

>

Well Dan, if it does, I have achieved the unachievable.

July 30, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby "

<toby.wilson@t...> wrote:

> Shawn,

>

> Perfect illustration... a kind of expereintial explanation - zero

intellect.

Toby

Yes, otherwise it is like asking the child of a baren woman,

" Who's your mother? " ,,,and then of course, there's the

grandmother!

))))))Shawn

> > > What is Consciousness?

> >

> > THIS

> >

July 30, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x>

wrote:

> Hey! Whatever turns you on! ...

>

> LOL

Exactly! What turns us on is what we are interested in. . What we

are interested in, we are devoted (give attention to, worship) to.

Until all experience (all objects we superimpose a relationship

upon) is clearly seen as dukkha (unsatisfactory) we will not turn

our full attention to it's Source.

)))))Shawn

>

> Shawn Hair [shawn@w...]

> Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:01 PM

> Nisargadatta

> Re: The thingy known as

Consciousness

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel "

<plexus@x>

> wrote:

>

> > You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But

> Consciousness is

> > trans-conceptual.

>

> +++++*************\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

>

> You mean it dresses up?!! What a fantastic image?!!

>

> ))))))Shawn

>

> **

>

> If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

> subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My

Groups:

>

> /mygroups?edit=1

>

> Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the

Nisargadatta

> group and click on Save Changes.

>

July 30, 2003

Dan...can we say touche' here?

-Bill

Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson]

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:33 PM

Nisargadatta

RE: Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

> > You don't really think that nothing folding back on itself

> explains something, do you?

>

Well Dan, if it does, I have achieved the unachievable.

**

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

/mygroups?edit=1

Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta

group and click on Save Changes.

July 30, 2003

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 08:40 PM

Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

<SNIP>

> Earnestly awaiting enlightenment.

I'll just bet you are <s>

You already are the enlightenment you are awaiting.

------

Ahaa.

But then right now I have to raise $40,000.

Any inside information on a benefactor(s),Dan, as I suspect that is

going to be far more useful, than conscious enlightenment.

July 30, 2003

> ))))))Shawn

>

> > > > What is Consciousness?

> > >

> > > THIS

> > >

Shawn

THIS is a good answer. Though not that " THAT " or the other's are not.

Parsa

July 30, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Sandeep " <sandeepc@b...>

wrote:> > Hiya learned Gurus and Masters on this List,

> >

> > Please do advise,....... what is this thingy known as

> Consciousness.

> >

> > Nisarga, Ramesh, Ramana, they all go on about

> Consciousness.

Sandeep,

Consciousness/thingy " IS " . The " ISNESS " excludes Nothing/y, yet

Nothing is included.

Parsa

July 30, 2003

Nisargadatta , Sandeep Chatterjee

<sandeepc@b...> wrote:

>

> -

> skoggman

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, July 28, 2003 08:25 PM

> Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

>

> the question:

>

> >>

> What is Consciousness?

> <<

>

Well, any answer is as good as the next,

but all's i know is that while y'all are giving out

answers, Andrew Cohen will probably start

a new magazine called

" What is Consciousness? "

to go along with " What is Enlightenment? "

and rake in some more ka-ching.

LOL

Freyja

July 30, 2003

Nisargadatta , " Sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, July 29, 2003 08:40 PM

> Re: The thingy known as Consciousness

>

> <SNIP>

>

> > Earnestly awaiting enlightenment.

>

> I'll just bet you are <s>

>

> You already are the enlightenment you are awaiting.

>

> ------

>

> Ahaa.

>

> But then right now I have to raise $40,000.

>

Oh my, Sandeep, if you need to raise money,

you can't possibly be " enlightened " ! <g> ;-)

Also, if one has cancer or any

Sign In

The thingy known as Consciousness

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest