Guest guest Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Hi again, > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > If intuition is a 'higher state' than the intellect how then > can > > > you > > > > *think* about it? > > > > > > > > My point is, WHY does it matter *what* intuition is if you > don't > > > know > > > > what you are? > > > > > > I think intuition is the direct knowing of what one is. > > > > > > It is a ME that thinks so! > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > It is Totality that thinks so! :-) No, it's not, the totality *can't think*. Any mentation is occuring with a reflected self, it takes a ME. So again, It is a ME that thinks so! > Real separation is in fact impossible.> Yes! >If something was _really_ > separate then it would not be a part of existence> Yes! >Existence is an > interrelated wholeness>> Yes, an *inter-related* *wholeness* Previously you have ignored the 'inter-related bit', making omelets without eggs. Kind Regards, Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > If intuition is a 'higher state' than the intellect how then > > can > > > > you > > > > > *think* about it? > > > > > > > > > > My point is, WHY does it matter *what* intuition is if you > > don't > > > > know > > > > > what you are? > > > > > > > > I think intuition is the direct knowing of what one is. > > > > > > > > > It is a ME that thinks so! > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > It is Totality that thinks so! :-) > > > > > No, it's not, the totality *can't think*. Yes, you are probably right. Seen as one Absolute wholeness there can probably be no motion, and thus no thinking. The ME you think of is a unique point in this Absolute wholeness. It's not a point as being a point in space, we can also say that this point is a unique quantum state, or a wave function. This state *is*. The change of this state also *is*. There is no real change happening. There is no real doing happening. Can you see this, or are you stuck in the intellect? ;-) > > Any mentation is occuring with a reflected self, it takes a ME. > > So again, It is a ME that thinks so! You are stuck in the intellect. The ME you talk about is just a thought. The thinker and the thinking are both thought. This has been explained by J. Krishnamurti, but few people seem to know what he is pointing to. Me, as a wannabe Sage, know perfectly well what he mean. ;-) > > > > > Real separation is in fact impossible.> > > > Yes! > > > >If something was _really_ > > separate then it would not be a part of existence> > > > Yes! > > > >Existence is an > > interrelated wholeness>> > > Yes, an *inter-related* *wholeness* > > > Previously you have ignored the 'inter-related bit', making omelets > without eggs. There are no omelets or eggs. Don't get me wrong here. There *are* omelets and eggs but only as an EMPTY projection within consciousness. What came first, the hen or the egg? The true answer is that none came first, they both appear SIMULTANEOUSLY NOW. Why are people blind to this obvious fact? ;-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Hi again Anders, > > > It is Totality that thinks so! :-) > > > > > > > > > > No, it's not, the totality *can't think*. > > Yes, you are probably right. Seen as one Absolute wholeness there can > probably be no motion, and thus no thinking> The totality *IS*, with a capital I and S. > The ME you think of is a unique point in this Absolute wholeness. > It's not a point as being a point in space, we can also say that this > point is a unique quantum state, or a wave function. This state *is*. > The change of this state also *is*. There is no real change > happening There is no real doing happening. Can you see this, or are > you stuck in the intellect? ;-)> What did you ( as a ME ) use to make the above assertions? Every time a thought occurrs that grasps for description, A ME subjectifies IT, ( what IS ) through itself, that subjectification *itself* is also a part of what is. As soon as you make any assertion as a ME, as soon as any philosophy is asserted or constructed, as soon as the thought arises, it is subjectifying the whole. The dog will never catch the tail. All these ideas are re-arranging the furniture within a framework of our current mythology. Who is this ME that wants to know and makes these claims because of searching? > > Any mentation is occuring with a reflected self, it takes a ME. > > > > So again, It is a ME that thinks so! > You are stuck in the intellect> It is a ME ( with intellect ) that says so. As soon as an assertion is made, a ME subjectifies. It does not matter *what* the assertion is, you can call it a dogs breakfast, every assertion by a ME subjectifies the whole. >The ME you talk about is just a > thought. The thinker and the thinking are both thought. This has been > explained by J. Krishnamurti, but few people seem to know what he is > pointing to. Me, as a wannabe Sage, know perfectly well what he > mean. ;-) It takes a ME to think a thought and arrive at subjective claims. It takes a mind / body apparatus to make assertions and use mentation. Thoughts are not realised TO thoughts and thoughts and the ME responsible for their realization are not one. > > Previously you have ignored the 'inter-related bit', making omelets > > without eggs. > > There are no omelets or eggs. Don't get me wrong here. There *are* > omelets and eggs but only as an EMPTY projection within consciousness> What projection? What empty projection? The universe is filled to the brim. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 There can be different ways to arrive at the begining. Or the non- begining if prefered. A now famous American Zen Master had been told by Nisargadatta to go to a forrest and meditate on finding out who you are. Later he returned. Maharaj asked him what he had been doing? I was meditating on finding out who I am, was the reply. Maharaj burst out laughing, and slapping his legs. " Why would you do that " " You told me to! " With another laugh, " Did you find who you are? " " Yes. " " OK, now go away and meditate that you are not. john i Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > > > It is Totality that thinks so! :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's not, the totality *can't think*. > > > > Yes, you are probably right. Seen as one Absolute wholeness there > can > > probably be no motion, and thus no thinking> > > > The totality *IS*, with a capital I and S. > > > > The ME you think of is a unique point in this Absolute wholeness. > > It's not a point as being a point in space, we can also say that > this > > point is a unique quantum state, or a wave function. This state > *is*. > > The change of this state also *is*. There is no real change > > happening There is no real doing happening. Can you see this, or > are > > you stuck in the intellect? ;-)> > > > What did you ( as a ME ) use to make the above assertions? > > Every time a thought occurrs that grasps for description, A ME > subjectifies IT, ( what IS ) through itself, that subjectification > *itself* is also a part of what is. > > As soon as you make any assertion as a ME, as soon as any philosophy > is asserted or constructed, as soon as the thought arises, it is > subjectifying the whole. > > The dog will never catch the tail. > > All these ideas are re-arranging the furniture within a framework of > our current mythology. > > Who is this ME that wants to know and makes these claims because of > searching? > > > > > > > Any mentation is occuring with a reflected self, it takes a ME. > > > > > > So again, It is a ME that thinks so! > > > You are stuck in the intellect> > > > It is a ME ( with intellect ) that says so. > > As soon as an assertion is made, a ME subjectifies. It does not > matter *what* the assertion is, you can call it a dogs breakfast, > every assertion by a ME subjectifies the whole. > > > > > >The ME you talk about is just a > > thought. The thinker and the thinking are both thought. This has > been > > explained by J. Krishnamurti, but few people seem to know what he > is > > pointing to. Me, as a wannabe Sage, know perfectly well what he > > mean. ;-) > > > It takes a ME to think a thought and arrive at subjective claims. > It takes a mind / body apparatus to make assertions and use mentation. > > Thoughts are not realised TO thoughts and thoughts and the ME > responsible for their realization are not one. > > > > > > > Previously you have ignored the 'inter-related bit', making > omelets > > > without eggs. > > > > There are no omelets or eggs. Don't get me wrong here. There *are* > > omelets and eggs but only as an EMPTY projection within > consciousness> > > > What projection? > > What empty projection? > > The universe is filled to the brim. > > > Kind Regards, > > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > > > It is Totality that thinks so! :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's not, the totality *can't think*. > > > > Yes, you are probably right. Seen as one Absolute wholeness there > can > > probably be no motion, and thus no thinking> > > > The totality *IS*, with a capital I and S. > > > > The ME you think of is a unique point in this Absolute wholeness. > > It's not a point as being a point in space, we can also say that > this > > point is a unique quantum state, or a wave function. This state > *is*. > > The change of this state also *is*. There is no real change > > happening There is no real doing happening. Can you see this, or > are > > you stuck in the intellect? ;-)> > > > What did you ( as a ME ) use to make the above assertions? > > Every time a thought occurrs that grasps for description, A ME > subjectifies IT, ( what IS ) through itself, that subjectification > *itself* is also a part of what is. > > As soon as you make any assertion as a ME, as soon as any philosophy > is asserted or constructed, as soon as the thought arises, it is > subjectifying the whole. > > The dog will never catch the tail. > > All these ideas are re-arranging the furniture within a framework of > our current mythology. > > Who is this ME that wants to know and makes these claims because of > searching? > > > > > > > Any mentation is occuring with a reflected self, it takes a ME. > > > > > > So again, It is a ME that thinks so! > > > You are stuck in the intellect> > > > It is a ME ( with intellect ) that says so. > > As soon as an assertion is made, a ME subjectifies. It does not > matter *what* the assertion is, you can call it a dogs breakfast, > every assertion by a ME subjectifies the whole. > > > > > >The ME you talk about is just a > > thought. The thinker and the thinking are both thought. This has > been > > explained by J. Krishnamurti, but few people seem to know what he > is > > pointing to. Me, as a wannabe Sage, know perfectly well what he > > mean. ;-) > > > It takes a ME to think a thought and arrive at subjective claims. > It takes a mind / body apparatus to make assertions and use mentation. > > Thoughts are not realised TO thoughts and thoughts and the ME > responsible for their realization are not one. Pure awareness is aware of what is happening to the body/mind mechanism. See awareness as the observer of everything that happens inluding everything you see as a ME. > > > > > > > Previously you have ignored the 'inter-related bit', making > omelets > > > without eggs. > > > > There are no omelets or eggs. Don't get me wrong here. There *are* > > omelets and eggs but only as an EMPTY projection within > consciousness> > > > What projection? > > What empty projection? > > The universe is filled to the brim. What we call the material universe exists in the zero second thick slide called the now. Even the past and the future exists in this now. The world is Maya, an empty projection observed by awareness. The world _is_ filled to the brim, don't get me wrong, but what _is_ material stuff? You are the center of your own universe, you are _all_ of that universe. The entire material universe is a projection created _in_ you. As Douglas Harding said, " Attent to that which you are looking out of " . See: http://www.headless.org/English/main.html /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 Hi again Anders, > > It takes a ME to think a thought and arrive at subjective claims. > > It takes a mind / body apparatus to make assertions and use > mentation. > > > > Thoughts are not realised TO thoughts and thoughts and the ME > > responsible for their realization are not one. > Pure awareness is aware of what is happening to the body/mind > mechanism. See awareness as the observer of everything that happens > inluding everything you see as a ME. What *IS* awareness / pure awareness? Does awareness observe? > What we call the material universe exists in the zero second thick > slide called the now> The universe / whole is not dependent upon time, the behaviour of the phenomenon is followed by time as a consequence, and makes times' defining possible. NOW includes 'ALL time' so saying it is 'zero seconds thick' is probably not the best way to put it, but it doesn't matter what you or anyone says; What you ( as a ME ) call the 'zero second thick slide' along with the mentation that lead to this assertion is *itself* a part of the apparent phenomenon; it is simply *another* subjectification and another *phenomenon also* It doesn't matter *what* you *call* what or what you *think*, as soon as a thought arises you ( as a ME ) are subjectifying. >Even the past and the future exists in this > now> There is only NOW, no 'this or that' needed. >The world is Maya, an empty projection observed by awareness> The world is a potato. What *IS* Maya? What is it empty of? What projection? Anything you *think* as a ME is a subjectification. > The world _is_ filled to the brim, don't get me wrong, but what _is_ > material stuff?> What is any 'stuff' > *no matter how subtle*? What is the difference between 'mind' and 'matter' is there a difference? >You are the center of your own universe, you are > _all_ of that universe. The entire material universe is a projection > created _in_ you. As Douglas Harding said, " Attent to that which you > are looking out of " > No, I'm not and it is a *ME* that says so. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > > > It takes a ME to think a thought and arrive at subjective claims. > > > It takes a mind / body apparatus to make assertions and use > > mentation. > > > > > > Thoughts are not realised TO thoughts and thoughts and the ME > > > responsible for their realization are not one. > > > > Pure awareness is aware of what is happening to the body/mind > > mechanism. See awareness as the observer of everything that happens > > inluding everything you see as a ME. > > > What *IS* awareness / pure awareness? > > Does awareness observe? Yes awareness is pure observing. When you think of a passive state of being only an observer, that is *not* awareness, that is the ego, a thought/feeling cloud being observed. > > > > What we call the material universe exists in the zero second thick > > slide called the now> > > > > The universe / whole is not dependent upon time, the behaviour of the > phenomenon is followed by time as a consequence, and makes times' > defining possible. > > NOW includes 'ALL time' so saying it is 'zero seconds thick' is > probably not the best way to put it, but it doesn't matter what you > or anyone says; > > What you ( as a ME ) call the 'zero second thick slide' along with > the mentation that lead to this assertion is *itself* a part of the > apparent phenomenon; it is simply *another* subjectification and > another *phenomenon also* > > It doesn't matter *what* you *call* what or what you *think*, as soon > as a thought arises you ( as a ME ) are subjectifying. > > > >Even the past and the future exists in this > > now> > > > There is only NOW, no 'this or that' needed. But this now is both unique and common for each of us. The past is in this now, yes, but the future is not in this now, not yet. :-) I say zero seconds as a way of describing the timeless quality of the now. > > > > >The world is Maya, an empty projection observed by awareness> > > > The world is a potato. > > What *IS* Maya? > > What is it empty of? > > What projection? > > Anything you *think* as a ME is a subjectification. The world is not a potato, because a potato is just a projection. Timeless consciousness is the screen in which the world appear as a 3D " movie " that seems solid, but it is not the world that is solid, is what the world appear in that is solid: consciousness. What is consciousness? The answer is that consciousness is without size, substance or form, yet is the One self-aware Subject that *is*. Consciousness is all there is. Every form, size, object or manifestation is only relative. The One Absolute existence has no size (how can there be size without something to relate to), no substance (what substance can be absolute, substance can only appear as a _relative_ expression), no form (how can the absolute have any form when it has no size?). The One Absolute existence is consciousness. Differenct views in this consciousness give rise to universes, the experience of being a person with a human body e t c, but all this form, size and substance has no existence of its own, it is Maya, a sanskrit word that comes from the same root as Meter, or Matrix, meaning " that which can be measured " . The world can be measure, consciousness, or the Absolute, cannot be measured. Everything that can be measured (size, substance and form) has no absolute existence. The material world in an empty projection. What is solid and real is timeless consciousness. Think of the Absolute as a DVD record and a DVD player. The information on the DVD record is timeless. The DVD player is also " timeless " . The movie appearing when the laser in the player is shining on the DVD record is only a " projection " of the digital information on the DVD, the movie has no independent existence as an object of its own. So the movie itself is empty. Similarly, timeless consciousness is the DVD record and player and the world is the movie being projected out of pure consciousness. > > > > The world _is_ filled to the brim, don't get me wrong, but what > _is_ > > material stuff?> > > > What is any 'stuff' > *no matter how subtle*? > > What is the difference between 'mind' and 'matter' is there a > difference? Mind in the form of thoughts, feelings e t c is matter (energy). Mind in the form of undifferiented consiousness is awareness, or the Abolute One Subject. So consciousness is the subtle " stuff " that is real, but consciousness has no size, form or substance. Every " thing " , every measurable aspect of consciousness; the body, a thought, a car, a flower, a feeling, a memory, a rock, a tree, a baby, an old lady, a computer and a cloud. All these things can be measured, and strangely enough, therefore have no existence. This is the emptiness Buddhism talks about. " 16. That which does not exist [asat] can have no becoming, while that which exists [sat] can never cease to be. " -- The Bhagavadgita, Chapter 2 That which does not exist is the material world, and the world can have no becoming. The world alread is in a timeless form in consciousness like information on a timeless DVD record. That which exists is consciousness and that can never cease to be. Awareness is undifferentated timeless consciousness. The world, or Maya is a vibration in this undifferentiated consciousness. A vibration is nothing in itself. This vibration is a very complex quantum state that makes the world appear as it does. So the whole material universe is just a ripple in consciousness, a quantum state, what we call enery and matter are just a patterns in consiousness. > > > > >You are the center of your own universe, you are > > _all_ of that universe. The entire material universe is a > projection > > created _in_ you. As Douglas Harding said, " Attent to that which > you > > are looking out of " > > > > No, I'm not and it is a *ME* that says so. You _are_ at the center of your own universe. Everybody is in their own center, and that center is the same in every person, that center is pure awareness, that is in truth what we all are, and we are all one in that pure awareness. That is the Oneness mystics have talked about. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Hi Anders, > > There is only NOW, no 'this or that' needed. > > But this now is both unique and common for each of us> Not 'this' now. The *now* is not what changes as a different thing for observers. Now includes everything, us, you and me, and our perceptions, it is not something that is unique to any ME. Or to try to put it another way, it is 'above' a ME *and* it's perception. >The past is in > this now, yes, but the future is not in this now, not yet. :-) Now includes all time, there is no 'past present or future' that is not within NOW. 'Now' is not a 'moment in time', Now is 'all time'. > I say zero seconds as a way of describing the timeless quality of the > now. Yes, timeless in the sense that Now is not *in* time. > > Anything you *think* as a ME is a subjectification. > > The world is not a potato, because a potato is just a projection> The world is *just as much* a potato as it is a DVD, thought in Gods mind, screen of awareness, consciousness, mind field, nothingness or fancy dancer. Every assertion is a subjectification of the whole by a reflected ME. > Timeless consciousness is the screen in which the world appear as a > 3D " movie " that seems solid, but it is not the world that is solid, > is what the world appear in that is solid: consciousness. The world is very solid, it's just that every-THING is an illusionary phantom not real in itself The world does not appear 'in' anything. > What is consciousness? The answer is that consciousness is without > size, substance or form, yet is the One self-aware Subject that *is*> People define consciousness different ways. The Indians and Tibetans use different terms to try and describe the same 'thing'. Some people say consciousness is all there is meaning what we call matter is a form of consciousness, others say that all is mind and awareness is what perceives it, or consciousness is all there is and that pure awareness perceives it. It can all be very misleading because no one agrees on what the terms mean prior to discussing them. The sanskrit language has a number of terms to distinguish between different things that in English we all label together as 'consciousness' But we can be sure to agree that the nature of the phenomenon and the whole is 'mental' yes. Any discussion needs the terms consciousness, pure awareness etc defined to a point of agreement in their use. You have used the term consciousness to mean both the phenomenon and the 'pure awareness' or 'subject'. <Every form, size, object or > manifestation is only relative> Yes. >The One Absolute existence has no > size (how can there be size without something to relate to), no > substance (what substance can be absolute, substance can only appear > as a _relative_ expression), no form (how can the absolute have any > form when it has no size?). The One Absolute existence is > consciousness. What is the 'one absolute existence'. Does the one absolute existence have existence? The 'one absolute existence' is a subjectification of what is. >Differenct views in this consciousness give rise to > universes> A different view does not give rise to a universe, different views ARE the universe or one reality. Every being or perceiving individual contributes and participates in making the one reality what it is. >the experience of being a person with a human body e t c, > but all this form, size and substance has no existence of its own> Yes. > Everything that can be measured (size, substance and form) has no > absolute existence. Yes! <The material world in an empty projection> What is it empty of? What projection? The world is *full*, there is nothing more that you can add ( or take away )! <What is solid and real is timeless consciousness> Are you sure that consciousness ( as you have spoken of it above ) is solid and real? > Think of the Absolute as a DVD record and a DVD player> Think of the absolute as a ... rodeo clown. You can't *think* of the 'absolute' as anything, even the 'absolute' is a badge by a ME which itself is subjectifying *what is* with that badge. Or you can think of the absolute as *anything*, it makes no difference. >The > information on the DVD record is timeless. The DVD player is > also " timeless " . The movie appearing when the laser in the player is > shining on the DVD record is only a " projection " of the digital > information on the DVD, the movie has no independent existence as an > object of its own> The world is not a projection in anything. > Mind in the form of thoughts, feelings e t c is matter (energy)> Yes, mental matter. >Mind > in the form of undifferiented consiousness is awareness, or the > Abolute One Subject> ''Matter'' is that which is known but which itself cannot know, that which is the knower of matter has been called the pure subject, ''subjectivity'', God, etc etc. > Every " thing " , every measurable aspect of consciousness; the body, a > thought, a car, a flower, a feeling, a memory, a rock, a tree, a > baby, an old lady, a computer and a cloud. All these things can be > measured, and strangely enough, therefore have no existence. This is > the emptiness Buddhism talks about> Yes, no-THING has a real of itself existence. No-THING IS. > Awareness is undifferentated timeless consciousness. The world, or > Maya is a vibration in this undifferentiated consciousness> Yes, everything is a vibration within a spectrum of vibrating 'mind'. >A > vibration is nothing in itself> In itself a vibration is the vibration only. Beethovens' 9th is only a vibration 'in itself'. Vibration is the word we use to describe the fundamental that makes things what they are e.g a colour, a cloud, light, x-rays, etc >This vibration is a very complex > quantum state that makes the world appear as it does> Quantum state? Yes, everything exists as a vibration. Everything vibrates. >So the whole > material universe is just a ripple in consciousness> No, it's not that either. , a quantum state, > what we call enery and matter are just a patterns in consiousness. 'in' consciousness? Evreything is of the nature of 'mind' yes! > You _are_ at the center of your own universe> No, I'm not and it is a ME that says so. >Everybody is in their > own center, and that center is the same in every person> What center? Whose center? >that center > is pure awareness, that is in truth what we all are We are not pure awareness. >and we are all > one in that pure awareness.> No, we are not. >That is the Oneness mystics have talked > about.> Yes, nearly every philosophy or mystic path agrees on this fundamental that 'everything is one'. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Hi Anders, > > There is only NOW, no 'this or that' needed. > > But this now is both unique and common for each of us> Not 'this' now. *Now* is not what changes as a different thing for observers. Now includes everything, us, you and me, and our perceptions, it is not something that is unique to any ME. Or to try to put it another way, it is 'above' a ME *and* it's perception. >The past is in > this now, yes, but the future is not in this now, not yet. :-) Now includes all time, there is no 'past present or future' that is not within NOW. 'Now' is not a 'moment in time', Now is 'all time'. > I say zero seconds as a way of describing the timeless quality of the > now. Yes, timeless in the sense that Now is not *in* time. > > Anything you *think* as a ME is a subjectification. > > The world is not a potato, because a potato is just a projection> The world is *just as much* a potato as it is a DVD, thought in Gods mind, screen of awareness, consciousness, mind field, nothingness or fancy dancer. Every assertion is a subjectification of the whole by a reflected ME. > Timeless consciousness is the screen in which the world appear as a > 3D " movie " that seems solid, but it is not the world that is solid, > is what the world appear in that is solid: consciousness. The world is very solid it's just that everyTHING is not real in itself, an appearance and disappearance without any inherent realness of itself. > What is consciousness? The answer is that consciousness is without > size, substance or form, yet is the One self-aware Subject that *is*> People define consciousness different ways. The Indians and Tibetans use different terms to try and describe the same 'thing'. Some people say consciousness is all there is meaning what we call matter is a form of consciousness, others say that all is mind and awareness is what perceives it, or consciousness is all there is and that pure awareness perceives it. It can all be very misleading because no one agrees on what the terms mean prior to discussing them. In Sanskrit there are different terms that are used to describe what we in English simply label as consciousness. But we can be sure to agree that the nature of the phenomenon and the whole is 'mental' yes. Any discussion needs the terms consciousness, pure awareness etc defined to a point of agreement in their use. I think you have been using the term consciousness to mean subjectivity and at other times describing the nature of phenomenon. <Every form, size, object or > manifestation is only relative> Yes. >The One Absolute existence has no > size (how can there be size without something to relate to), no > substance (what substance can be absolute, substance can only appear > as a _relative_ expression), no form (how can the absolute have any > form when it has no size?). The One Absolute existence is > consciousness. What is the 'one absolute existence'. Does it have existence? The 'one absolute existence' is a subjectification of what is. >Differenct views in this consciousness give rise to > universes> Different views do not give rise to the universe. Different views ARE the universe or one reality. Every being or perceiving individual contributes and participates in making the one reality what it is. >the experience of being a person with a human body e t c, > but all this form, size and substance has no existence of its own> Yes! > Everything that can be measured (size, substance and form) has no > absolute existence. Yes. <The material world in an empty projection> What is it empty of? What projection? The world is *full*, there is nothing more that you can add ( or take away )! <What is solid and real is timeless consciousness> Are you sure that consciousness ( as you have spoken of it above ) is solid and real? > Think of the Absolute as a DVD record and a DVD player> Think of the absolute as a ... rodeo clown. You can't *think* of the 'absolute' as anything, even the 'absolute' is a badge by a ME which itself is subjectifying *what is* with that badge. Or you can think of the absolute as *anything*, it makes no difference. >The > information on the DVD record is timeless. The DVD player is > also " timeless " . The movie appearing when the laser in the player is > shining on the DVD record is only a " projection " of the digital > information on the DVD, the movie has no independent existence as an > object of its own> The world is not a projection 'in' anything. > Mind in the form of thoughts, feelings e t c is matter (energy)> Yes, mental matter. >Mind > in the form of undifferiented consiousness is awareness, or the > Abolute One Subject> ''Matter'' is that which is known, but which itself cannot know, that which is the knower of matter has been called the pure subject, ''subjectivity'', God, etc etc. > Every " thing " , every measurable aspect of consciousness; the body, a > thought, a car, a flower, a feeling, a memory, a rock, a tree, a > baby, an old lady, a computer and a cloud. All these things can be > measured, and strangely enough, therefore have no existence. This is > the emptiness Buddhism talks about> Yes, no-THING has a real of itself existence. No-THING IS. > Awareness is undifferentated timeless consciousness. The world, or > Maya is a vibration in this undifferentiated consciousness> Yes, everything is a vibration within a spectrum of 'mind'. >A > vibration is nothing in itself> In itself a vibration is vibration only. Beethovens' 9th is 'only' a vibration, in itself. Vibration is the word we use to describe the shared fundamental that makes things what they are e.g a colour, a cloud, light, x-rays, etc >This vibration is a very complex > quantum state that makes the world appear as it does> Yes, everything exists as vibration. So the whole > material universe is just a ripple in consciousness> No, it's not that either. , a quantum state, > what we call enery and matter are just a patterns in consiousness. 'in' consciousness? The nature of the phenomenon is 'mental', energy, matter / mind are inseperable aspects of description. > You _are_ at the center of your own universe> No, I'm not and it is a ME that says so. >Everybody is in their > own center, and that center is the same in every person> What center? Whose center? >that center > is pure awareness, that is in truth what we all are We are not pure awareness. >and we are all > one in that pure awareness.> No, we are not. >That is the Oneness mystics have talked > about.> Yes, nearly every philosophy or mystic path agrees on this fundamental that 'everything is one'. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > > > There is only NOW, no 'this or that' needed. > > > > But this now is both unique and common for each of us> > > > Not 'this' now. > > *Now* is not what changes as a different thing for observers. > > Now includes everything, us, you and me, and our perceptions, it is > not something that is unique to any ME. > > Or to try to put it another way, it is 'above' a ME *and* it's > perception. My now is everything I am, and that is a uniques view. > > > > > >The past is in > > this now, yes, but the future is not in this now, not yet. :-) > > > Now includes all time, there is no 'past present or future' that is > not within NOW. > > 'Now' is not a 'moment in time', Now is 'all time'. I think of the now as constant experiencing of the future. Nothing of the future has appeared to me yet. :-) > > > > > > I say zero seconds as a way of describing the timeless quality of > the > > now. > > > Yes, timeless in the sense that Now is not *in* time. > > > > > > > Anything you *think* as a ME is a subjectification. > > > > The world is not a potato, because a potato is just a projection> > > > > The world is *just as much* a potato as it is a DVD, thought in Gods > mind, screen of awareness, consciousness, mind field, nothingness or > fancy dancer. > > Every assertion is a subjectification of the whole by a reflected ME. Isn't this just an assertion? ;-) > > > > > Timeless consciousness is the screen in which the world appear as a > > 3D " movie " that seems solid, but it is not the world that is solid, > > is what the world appear in that is solid: consciousness. > > > The world is very solid it's just that everyTHING is not real in > itself, an appearance and disappearance without any inherent > realness of itself. Yes, what is is the absolute and the abolute must be the All seen as 'not two'. > > > > > What is consciousness? The answer is that consciousness is without > > size, substance or form, yet is the One self-aware Subject that > *is*> > > > People define consciousness different ways. > The Indians and Tibetans use different terms to try and describe the > same 'thing'. > Some people say consciousness is all there is meaning what we call > matter is a form of consciousness, others say that all > is mind and awareness is what perceives it, or consciousness is all > there is and that pure awareness perceives it. > > It can all be very misleading because no one agrees on what the terms > mean prior to discussing them. > > In Sanskrit there are different terms that are used to describe what > we in English simply label as consciousness. > > But we can be sure to agree that the nature of the phenomenon and the > whole is 'mental' yes. > Any discussion needs the terms consciousness, pure awareness etc > defined to a point of agreement in their use. > > I think you have been using the term consciousness to mean > subjectivity and at other times describing the nature of phenomenon. > > > <Every form, size, object or > > manifestation is only relative> > > > Yes. > > > >The One Absolute existence has no > > size (how can there be size without something to relate to), no > > substance (what substance can be absolute, substance can only > appear > > as a _relative_ expression), no form (how can the absolute have any > > form when it has no size?). The One Absolute existence is > > consciousness. > > > What is the 'one absolute existence'. > > Does it have existence? > > The 'one absolute existence' is a subjectification of what is. It is better to say the 'not two' absolute existence. > > > > >Differenct views in this consciousness give rise to > > universes> > > > Different views do not give rise to the universe. Different views ARE > the universe or one reality. > > Every being or perceiving individual contributes and participates in > making the one reality what it is. Only the ego contributes as a form of illusion. > > > > >the experience of being a person with a human body e t c, > > but all this form, size and substance has no existence of its own> > > > Yes! > > > > Everything that can be measured (size, substance and form) has no > > absolute existence. > > > Yes. > > > <The material world in an empty projection> > > > What is it empty of? > > What projection? > > The world is *full*, there is nothing more that you can add ( or take > away )! The world is empty of substance in the sense that the substance of something can exist by itself. It can't. > > > > <What is solid and real is timeless consciousness> > > > Are you sure that consciousness ( as you have spoken of it above ) is > solid and real? Only that which cannot be measured *can* be real. > > > > > Think of the Absolute as a DVD record and a DVD player> > > > Think of the absolute as a ... rodeo clown. > > You can't *think* of the 'absolute' as anything, even the 'absolute' > is a badge by a ME which itself is subjectifying *what is* > with that badge. > > Or you can think of the absolute as *anything*, it makes no > difference. The absolute cannot be measured. But we have to use pointers to describe the _feeling_ of what the absolute " is " . > > > > >The > > information on the DVD record is timeless. The DVD player is > > also " timeless " . The movie appearing when the laser in the player > is > > shining on the DVD record is only a " projection " of the digital > > information on the DVD, the movie has no independent existence as > an > > object of its own> > > > The world is not a projection 'in' anything. Are you in the world, or is the world in you? I think it was Nisargadatta who asked this if I remember " I am That " correctly. > > > > > Mind in the form of thoughts, feelings e t c is matter (energy)> > > > Yes, mental matter. > > > >Mind > > in the form of undifferiented consiousness is awareness, or the > > Abolute One Subject> > > > ''Matter'' is that which is known, but which itself cannot know, > that which is the knower of matter has been called the pure > subject, ''subjectivity'', God, etc etc. Yes. > > > > > Every " thing " , every measurable aspect of consciousness; the body, > a > > thought, a car, a flower, a feeling, a memory, a rock, a tree, a > > baby, an old lady, a computer and a cloud. All these things can be > > measured, and strangely enough, therefore have no existence. This > is > > the emptiness Buddhism talks about> > > > Yes, no-THING has a real of itself existence. > No-THING IS. > > > > > Awareness is undifferentated timeless consciousness. The world, or > > Maya is a vibration in this undifferentiated consciousness> > > > Yes, everything is a vibration within a spectrum of 'mind'. > > > >A > > vibration is nothing in itself> > > > In itself a vibration is vibration only. > > Beethovens' 9th is 'only' a vibration, in itself. > > Vibration is the word we use to describe the shared fundamental that > makes things what they are > e.g a colour, a cloud, light, x-rays, etc > > > > >This vibration is a very complex > > quantum state that makes the world appear as it does> > > > Yes, everything exists as vibration. > > > So the whole > > material universe is just a ripple in consciousness> > > > No, it's not that either. > > > , a quantum state, > > what we call enery and matter are just a patterns in consiousness. > > > 'in' consciousness? Are you in the world, or is the world in you? > > The nature of the phenomenon is 'mental', energy, matter / mind are > inseperable aspects of description. > > > > > You _are_ at the center of your own universe> > > > No, I'm not and it is a ME that says so. Are you in the world, or is the world in you? :-) > > > >Everybody is in their > > own center, and that center is the same in every person> > > > What center? Whose center? Are you in the world, or is the world in you? ;-) > > > >that center > > is pure awareness, that is in truth what we all are > > > We are not pure awareness. That which cannot be measured. > > > >and we are all > > one in that pure awareness.> > > > No, we are not. Maybe, maybe not. > > > >That is the Oneness mystics have talked > > about.> > > > Yes, nearly every philosophy or mystic path agrees on this > fundamental that 'everything is one'. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Hi again Anders, > > Or to try to put it another way, it is 'above' a ME *and* it's > > perception. > > My now is everything I am, and that is a uniques view. There is no 'my' now. Now is above the 'me' and it's perception. > > 'Now' is not a 'moment in time', Now is 'all time'. > > I think of the now as constant experiencing of the future. Nothing of > the future has appeared to me yet. :-) Now is timeless in that it is eternal and 'above' time. > Every assertion is a subjectification of the whole by a reflected ME. <Isn't this just an assertion? ;-)> Yes. Every assertion subjectifies the whole, even as the thought arises. > > The world is very solid it's just that everyTHING is not real in > > itself, an appearance and disappearance without any inherent > > realness of itself. > > Yes, what is is the absolute and the abolute must be the All seen > as 'not two'. > > > The 'one absolute existence' is a subjectification of what is. > > It is better to say the 'not two' absolute existence. How is it better to *say* anything? For whose benefit? > > Every being or perceiving individual contributes and participates > in > > making the one reality what it is. > > Only the ego contributes as a form of illusion. You cannot grade reality to its realness. A thought is 'just as real' as a tree, the gods are just as real as a coffee cup, it is all *real* > > The world is *full*, there is nothing more that you can add ( or > take > > away )! > > The world is empty of substance in the sense that the substance of > something can exist by itself. It can't. Yes, something in and of itself has no independent existence, that does not make it empty, it makes it empty OF independent existence. > > <What is solid and real is timeless consciousness> > > > > > > Are you sure that consciousness ( as you have spoken of it above ) > is > > solid and real? > > Only that which cannot be measured *can* be real. Thoughts are real, Gods are real. A pink elephant is real. Dreams are real. > > > Think of the Absolute as a DVD record and a DVD player> > > > > > > Think of the absolute as a ... rodeo clown. > > > > You can't *think* of the 'absolute' as anything, even > the 'absolute' > > is a badge by a ME which itself is subjectifying *what is* > > with that badge. > > > > Or you can think of the absolute as *anything*, it makes no > > difference. > > The absolute cannot be measured. But we have to use pointers to > describe the _feeling_ of what the absolute " is " . All pointers are the 'same distance' away. A tree points the same way as a philosophical treatise, pair of jeans or tree stump. > > The world is not a projection 'in' anything. > > Are you in the world, or is the world in you? I think it was > Nisargadatta who asked this if I remember " I am That " correctly. Every ME and every-thing is 'within mind'. There is nothing outside of mind. The world does not appear in a ME or anything else. > > We are not pure awareness. > > That which cannot be measured. We are not that either. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > > > Or to try to put it another way, it is 'above' a ME *and* it's > > > perception. > > > > My now is everything I am, and that is a uniques view. > > > There is no 'my' now. > Now is above the 'me' and it's perception. My now and me are one. :-) > > > > > 'Now' is not a 'moment in time', Now is 'all time'. > > > > I think of the now as constant experiencing of the future. Nothing > of > > the future has appeared to me yet. :-) > > > Now is timeless in that it is eternal and 'above' time. Yes,, now is more than time, and what is more than time must be other than time, and so being not time that " thing " is timeless. > > > > Every assertion is a subjectification of the whole by a reflected > ME. > > <Isn't this just an assertion? ;-)> > > > Yes. Every assertion subjectifies the whole, even as the thought > arises. > > > > > > The world is very solid it's just that everyTHING is not real in > > > itself, an appearance and disappearance without any inherent > > > realness of itself. > > > > Yes, what is is the absolute and the abolute must be the All seen > > as 'not two'. > > > > > The 'one absolute existence' is a subjectification of what is. > > > > It is better to say the 'not two' absolute existence. > > > How is it better to *say* anything? > For whose benefit? The absolute cannot be said to be one. There can only be one as a " thing " separare from other " things " . One is a way of counting an object. Absolute existence is not an object because an object only exists within a relational context. Saying 'not two' is perhaps not the truth either, but it is at least not stuck in " counting " things. > > > > > > Every being or perceiving individual contributes and participates > > in > > > making the one reality what it is. > > > > Only the ego contributes as a form of illusion. > > > You cannot grade reality to its realness. > A thought is 'just as real' as a tree, the gods are just as real as a > coffee cup, it is all *real* Yes, but there are degrees in relational reality. And there are also relational truths and relational false statements. All this is Maya (that which can be measured), but within Maya there are many relative degrees. Sages speak about realizing the timeless Witness. I believe that is a state of having transcended Maya. Not that one disappears in a cloud of smoke into Nirvana, but more like being liberated *while* living in Maya. > > > > > > The world is *full*, there is nothing more that you can add ( or > > take > > > away )! > > > > The world is empty of substance in the sense that the substance of > > something can exist by itself. It can't. > > > Yes, something in and of itself has no independent existence, that > does not make it empty, it makes it empty OF independent existence. I see reality as being a formless ocean, and material objects waves in this ocean. A wave in a real ocean is not empty, it is full of water! But what would the wave be without the ocean? What *is* a wave other than a temporary pattern? > > > > > > <What is solid and real is timeless consciousness> > > > > > > > > > Are you sure that consciousness ( as you have spoken of it > above ) > > is > > > solid and real? > > > > Only that which cannot be measured *can* be real. > > > Thoughts are real, Gods are real. A pink elephant is real. > Dreams are real. Only in the form of relational existence. I am talking about absolute existence. > > > > > > > > Think of the Absolute as a DVD record and a DVD player> > > > > > > > > > Think of the absolute as a ... rodeo clown. > > > > > > You can't *think* of the 'absolute' as anything, even > > the 'absolute' > > > is a badge by a ME which itself is subjectifying *what is* > > > with that badge. > > > > > > Or you can think of the absolute as *anything*, it makes no > > > difference. > > > > The absolute cannot be measured. But we have to use pointers to > > describe the _feeling_ of what the absolute " is " . > > > All pointers are the 'same distance' away. > > A tree points the same way as a philosophical treatise, pair of jeans > or tree stump. Yes. > > > > > The world is not a projection 'in' anything. > > > > Are you in the world, or is the world in you? I think it was > > Nisargadatta who asked this if I remember " I am That " correctly. > > > Every ME and every-thing is 'within mind'. > There is nothing outside of mind. > > The world does not appear in a ME or anything else. What I think Nisargadatta meant was the same thing you say: everything is 'within mind', so that there is no objective world at all " out there " . There is no George W. Bush running around in the world. What I think Nisargadatta meant was that there is no external world. George W. Bush is running around in your mind! So are the moon, the sun and the stars! :-) /AL > > > > > We are not pure awareness. > > > > That which cannot be measured. > > > We are not that either. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. 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.