Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2004 " The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. " -- Nisargadatta Maharaj You can perceive your money for example. That shows that your are not your money. You can also perceive the thought " My money " , and that shows that your are not the thought " My money " . You can perceive the thought/feeling " I " , and that shows that you are not the thought/feeling " I " ! All thought-constructs are only the intellect. You are _not_ the intellect. You are not the 'you' you think yourself to be. The 'you' is only a thought in relation to other thoughts, for example the thought " I " in relation to " My money " create a separate 'you', an ego. It's all a thought-web, and you are not that thought-web. A timeless insight happens when the realization of " I am not my thoughts " dawns upon you. " Discover all that you are not--body, feelings, thoughts, time, space, this or that--nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. " -- Nisargadatta Maharaj /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:29:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dan330033 writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 9:32:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > dan330033 writes:> > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote:> > > > > ****My grandmother was never 'here', and neither are you or me. This is > > what you refuse to get. Year after year you go on insisting that you > exist as > > swirling neumonic debris or memory or some such nonsense. No you don't. > > None of that has any existence.> > The two of you are using the word "you" differently.> > It's a matter of semantics and context.> > Such a dialogue can't produce a coherent mutually shared context.> > Which is typical of so many dialogues.> > And that is fine.> > Truth isn't a product of a mutually shared context, nor is truth a > mutually shared context.> > > -- D.> > > > ****In this case, I don't think it's just a matter of semantics and > context. It's not like we both agree there is a 'vehicle' of perception, and then > that which is aware of this vehicle and more fundamental. It's not like I > happen to be talking about one and Toom happens to be talking about the > other. He doesn't accept the existence of a perceiver (what he sarcastically > calls "Big Self"), and so to him 'you', 'I', 'me', always point to the same > swirling cloud of neumonic debris that doesn't exist.> > Toom is playing the neti-neti game of 'I don't exist', and the better he > gets at the game, the more he prooves himself a liar. The only way out for > some players is to construct a mental void into which they can banish > themselves. Been there, done that, and it's not the least bit pleasant.There is only One here.Only One being aware.That One is not a numerical one.There is nothing it could be aware of, that is not of itself, and is not itself in a form able to be formed.This One is None, because there is nothing to compare it with, no quality to ascribe to it, including the quality of being, or existing or not existing.This One forming as human, being aware of the human being aware, has never been spoken of by the human. Has never been conceptualized. Has never been touched.No human being has ever gotten what this is, nor ever could, nor would ever need to.One is aware as this.Without any remark about it having formed.The words appearing here are no different than any other phenomena.They are apprehended through what Nisargadatta refers to as human consciousness.As he says, the consciousness dissolves with the body.One is aware.This body typing and registering patterns that appear on a computer screen is itself an appearance.-- Dan ****Rojer that. I might have missed your point, though. I thought we were talking about whether Toom and I were referring to the same 'you'. Or were you somehow referencing the neti-neti thingy? We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Dan,Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying "I am aware of being aware". But thought never was and will be aware of anything. ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware of stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present. Only the mind can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of thought is an illusion created by the thoughts. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 In a message dated 5/27/2009 2:48:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes:> > Dan,> > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying "I am > aware of being aware". But thought never was and will be aware of anything.> > > ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware> stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present.There is no awareness of stuff, Phil. There only is consciousness which is its content.The moment there is awareness of stuff it is thought which says to be aware of stuff.y> Only the mind > can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of thought is > an illusion created by the thoughts.>Sorry Phil, read again what I wrote. I wrote that to be aware OF something is an illusion created by thought because originally there is no awareness OF something.In different words, there is only awarenes which IS that something. The > OF <, and therefore the separation between awareness and that something is introduced by thought.You got it ? There is no OF ...Werner ****Right. Ultimately, there is just Awareness arising as thought or feeling or object or whatever. That's what IS. That's what I,you,we are. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 9:32:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > dan330033 writes: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > ****My grandmother was never 'here', and neither are you or me. This is > > what you refuse to get. Year after year you go on insisting that you > exist as > > swirling neumonic debris or memory or some such nonsense. No you don't. > > None of that has any existence. > > The two of you are using the word " you " differently. > > It's a matter of semantics and context. > > Such a dialogue can't produce a coherent mutually shared context. > > Which is typical of so many dialogues. > > And that is fine. > > Truth isn't a product of a mutually shared context, nor is truth a > mutually shared context. > > > -- D. > > > > ****In this case, I don't think it's just a matter of semantics and > context. It's not like we both agree there is a 'vehicle' of perception, and then > that which is aware of this vehicle and more fundamental. It's not like I > happen to be talking about one and Toom happens to be talking about the > other. He doesn't accept the existence of a perceiver (what he sarcastically > calls " Big Self " ), and so to him 'you', 'I', 'me', always point to the same > swirling cloud of neumonic debris that doesn't exist. > > Toom is playing the neti-neti game of 'I don't exist', and the better he > gets at the game, the more he prooves himself a liar. The only way out for > some players is to construct a mental void into which they can banish > themselves. Been there, done that, and it's not the least bit pleasant. There is only One here. Only One being aware. That One is not a numerical one. There is nothing it could be aware of, that is not of itself, and is not itself in a form able to be formed. This One is None, because there is nothing to compare it with, no quality to ascribe to it, including the quality of being, or existing or not existing. This One forming as human, being aware of the human being aware, has never been spoken of by the human. Has never been conceptualized. Has never been touched. No human being has ever gotten what this is, nor ever could, nor would ever need to. One is aware as this. Without any remark about it having formed. The words appearing here are no different than any other phenomena. They are apprehended through what Nisargadatta refers to as human consciousness. As he says, the consciousness dissolves with the body. One is aware. This body typing and registering patterns that appear on a computer screen is itself an appearance. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 9:32:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > dan330033@ writes: > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > ****My grandmother was never 'here', and neither are you or me. This is > > > what you refuse to get. Year after year you go on insisting that you > > exist as > > > swirling neumonic debris or memory or some such nonsense. No you don't. > > > None of that has any existence. > > > > The two of you are using the word " you " differently. > > > > It's a matter of semantics and context. > > > > Such a dialogue can't produce a coherent mutually shared context. > > > > Which is typical of so many dialogues. > > > > And that is fine. > > > > Truth isn't a product of a mutually shared context, nor is truth a > > mutually shared context. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > ****In this case, I don't think it's just a matter of semantics and > > context. It's not like we both agree there is a 'vehicle' of perception, and then > > that which is aware of this vehicle and more fundamental. It's not like I > > happen to be talking about one and Toom happens to be talking about the > > other. He doesn't accept the existence of a perceiver (what he sarcastically > > calls " Big Self " ), and so to him 'you', 'I', 'me', always point to the same > > swirling cloud of neumonic debris that doesn't exist. > > > > Toom is playing the neti-neti game of 'I don't exist', and the better he > > gets at the game, the more he prooves himself a liar. The only way out for > > some players is to construct a mental void into which they can banish > > themselves. Been there, done that, and it's not the least bit pleasant. > > There is only One here. > > Only One being aware. > > That One is not a numerical one. > > There is nothing it could be aware of, that is not of itself, and is not itself in a form able to be formed. > > This One is None, because there is nothing to compare it with, no quality to ascribe to it, including the quality of being, or existing or not existing. > > This One forming as human, being aware of the human being aware, has never been spoken of by the human. Has never been conceptualized. Has never been touched. Dan, Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of anything. > > No human being has ever gotten what this is, nor ever could, nor would ever need to. > > One is aware as this. > > Without any remark about it having formed. > > The words appearing here are no different than any other phenomena. > > They are apprehended through what Nisargadatta refers to as human consciousness. > > As he says, the consciousness dissolves with the body. > > One is aware. > > This body typing and registering patterns that appear on a computer screen is itself an appearance. >he i The " One " being aware of all this again is thought saying " I am aware of this and of that " . The One who (or which) knows is thought saying " I know this and I know that " . Without thought there is not the leasr of any knowing this or that, without thought the is not the least of being aware of this or of that. Werner > -- Dan > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 In a message dated 5/27/2009 2:56:13 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dan330033 writes: > ****Rojer that. > I might have missed your point, though. I thought we were talking about > whether Toom and I were referring to the same 'you'. Or were you somehow > referencing the neti-neti thingy?My point is that your analysis of what Toom is doing is a concoction, a construction, formed by interpreting words appearing on a screen.At this moment of reading these words, there is only one awareness.It is not a numerical one.It is not singular by virtue of being different than many.Many-ness and one-ness and none-ness are This.Which has no quality.This awareness is not only what reads these words, but what forms these words as words.It is perceiver/perceived with no separation, no distance.And is constructing space/time through us, those who read and develop thought-forms about other readers.-- Dan ****Yup. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 In a message dated 5/27/2009 3:09:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dan330033 writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes:> > Dan,> > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying "I am > aware of being aware". But thought never was and will be aware of anything.> > > ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware of > stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present. Only the mind > can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of thought is > an illusion created by the thoughts.Well-observed, Phil.And funny!This "something other" of which you speak can have no name or location.We use the term "awareness" because that term represents "what is not the object." But any assumptions about a quality of awareness, a location for it, etc., are thought-constructed. Even the name, by virtue of being a name, involves thought associations.Because "something other than thought" can't be positioned, it has no inside or outside.Thus, it can't be positioned "outside" of things, nor inside of anything.Therefore, it is consistent with all things.This "other" is not-two with all perceptions, yet has never been perceived, includes all forms, yet has never been formed, is equally all experiences, yet has never been experienced.-- Dan ****Uh huh. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 9:32:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > dan330033@ writes: > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > ****My grandmother was never 'here', and neither are you or me. This is > > > what you refuse to get. Year after year you go on insisting that you > > exist as > > > swirling neumonic debris or memory or some such nonsense. No you don't. > > > None of that has any existence. > > > > The two of you are using the word " you " differently. > > > > It's a matter of semantics and context. > > > > Such a dialogue can't produce a coherent mutually shared context. > > > > Which is typical of so many dialogues. > > > > And that is fine. > > > > Truth isn't a product of a mutually shared context, nor is truth a > > mutually shared context. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > ****In this case, I don't think it's just a matter of semantics and > > context. It's not like we both agree there is a 'vehicle' of perception, and then > > that which is aware of this vehicle and more fundamental. It's not like I > > happen to be talking about one and Toom happens to be talking about the > > other. He doesn't accept the existence of a perceiver (what he sarcastically > > calls " Big Self " ), and so to him 'you', 'I', 'me', always point to the same > > swirling cloud of neumonic debris that doesn't exist. > > > > Toom is playing the neti-neti game of 'I don't exist', and the better he > > gets at the game, the more he prooves himself a liar. The only way out for > > some players is to construct a mental void into which they can banish > > themselves. Been there, done that, and it's not the least bit pleasant. > > There is only One here. > > Only One being aware. > > That One is not a numerical one. > > There is nothing it could be aware of, that is not of itself, and is not itself in a form able to be formed. > > This One is None, because there is nothing to compare it with, no quality to ascribe to it, including the quality of being, or existing or not existing. > > This One forming as human, being aware of the human being aware, has never been spoken of by the human. Has never been conceptualized. Has never been touched. > > No human being has ever gotten what this is, nor ever could, nor would ever need to. > > One is aware as this. > > Without any remark about it having formed. > > The words appearing here are no different than any other phenomena. > > They are apprehended through what Nisargadatta refers to as human consciousness. > > As he says, the consciousness dissolves with the body. > > One is aware. > > This body typing and registering patterns that appear on a computer screen is itself an appearance. > > -- Dan and...and..breathless like..it's all...NOW! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 9:32:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > > dan330033@ writes: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ****My grandmother was never 'here', and neither are you or me. This is > > > > what you refuse to get. Year after year you go on insisting that you > > > exist as > > > > swirling neumonic debris or memory or some such nonsense. No you don't. > > > > None of that has any existence. > > > > > > The two of you are using the word " you " differently. > > > > > > It's a matter of semantics and context. > > > > > > Such a dialogue can't produce a coherent mutually shared context. > > > > > > Which is typical of so many dialogues. > > > > > > And that is fine. > > > > > > Truth isn't a product of a mutually shared context, nor is truth a > > > mutually shared context. > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > ****In this case, I don't think it's just a matter of semantics and > > > context. It's not like we both agree there is a 'vehicle' of perception, and then > > > that which is aware of this vehicle and more fundamental. It's not like I > > > happen to be talking about one and Toom happens to be talking about the > > > other. He doesn't accept the existence of a perceiver (what he sarcastically > > > calls " Big Self " ), and so to him 'you', 'I', 'me', always point to the same > > > swirling cloud of neumonic debris that doesn't exist. > > > > > > Toom is playing the neti-neti game of 'I don't exist', and the better he > > > gets at the game, the more he prooves himself a liar. The only way out for > > > some players is to construct a mental void into which they can banish > > > themselves. Been there, done that, and it's not the least bit pleasant. > > > > There is only One here. > > > > Only One being aware. > > > > That One is not a numerical one. > > > > There is nothing it could be aware of, that is not of itself, and is not itself in a form able to be formed. > > > > This One is None, because there is nothing to compare it with, no quality to ascribe to it, including the quality of being, or existing or not existing. > > > > This One forming as human, being aware of the human being aware, has never been spoken of by the human. Has never been conceptualized. Has never been touched. > > Dan, > > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of anything. > > > > > > No human being has ever gotten what this is, nor ever could, nor would ever need to. > > > > One is aware as this. > > > > Without any remark about it having formed. > > > > The words appearing here are no different than any other phenomena. > > > > They are apprehended through what Nisargadatta refers to as human consciousness. > > > > As he says, the consciousness dissolves with the body. > > > > One is aware. > > > > This body typing and registering patterns that appear on a computer screen is itself an appearance. > >he i > > > The " One " being aware of all this again is thought saying " I am aware of this and of that " . > > The One who (or which) knows is thought saying " I know this and I know that " . > > Without thought there is not the leasr of any knowing this or that, without thought the is not the least of being aware of this or of that. > > Werner yeah werner.. fish...cattle...pigs..birds.. they aren't the in the least aware of this or that.. like food...mating...shelter...stayin' alive..you know. mindless twits all. that's why they're so easy to hunt, kill and eat. we have thoughts! we are the man! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > Dan, > > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I am > aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of anything. > > > ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware of > stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present. Only the mind > can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of thought is > an illusion created by the thoughts. > > > > Is that what you think? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > Dan, > > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I am > aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of anything. > > > ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware of > stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present. Only the mind > can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of thought is > an illusion created by the thoughts. this is better than trailer park boys. you guys should talk more often. but wait.. i need to get some popcorn and a soda.. ....after i stop laughing. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: Hi Werner - > Dan, > > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of anything. True. Thought is an object of awareness. Thought is a construct. Thought is sensed, is constructed. > The " One " being aware of all this again is thought saying " I am aware of this and of that " . If you take it that way. You could also say the same thing of your statement: " Thought never was or will be aware of anything. " One could say, " That is thought saying, " I am aware of thought, and thought never will be aware of anything. " > The One who (or which) knows is thought saying " I know this and I know that " . There is that which thought cannot touch. It is implicit in the statement " thought will never know anything. " How are you able to say that, unless you've understood the limits of thought? Can thought understand the limits of thought? No. So, you are claiming an awareness not of thought in the statement that " thought will never know anything. " There are different ways to say this truth. One way is affirmative, such as statements that " One is aware. " The other is negative, such as statements that " thought cannot know anything. All that you are is a product of thought. " Either way, positive or negative, a distortion occurs. The distortion is that it is not possible to provide a verbalizable or conceptualizable formula for what is true, what is so. You can call what is so " awareness, " but that concept is not what it is. It is beyond is or is not, beyond is or not is. > Without thought there is not the leasr of any knowing this or that, without thought the is not the least of being aware of this or of that. The categories " with thought " and " without thought, " are still of thought. Saying " there is no this or that " is the negative way of trying to state truth. To make that statement requires that you have a concept of this and that, of difference, in order to negate that difference. Thus, there is a distortion in saying " there is no this or that. " If there truly is no this or that, truly no difference, the statement that " there is no this or that " cannot be made. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > Dan, > > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I am > aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of anything. > > > ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware > stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present. There is no awareness of stuff, Phil. There only is consciousness which is its content. The moment there is awareness of stuff it is thought which says to be aware of stuff.y > Only the mind > can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of thought is > an illusion created by the thoughts. > Sorry Phil, read again what I wrote. I wrote that to be aware OF something is an illusion created by thought because originally there is no awareness OF something. In different words, there is only awarenes which IS that something. The > OF <, and therefore the separation between awareness and that something is introduced by thought. You got it ? There is no OF ... Werner > > > > > **************We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’ > diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. > (http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000004) > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:29:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > dan330033 writes: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 9:32:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > dan330033@ writes: > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > ****My grandmother was never 'here', and neither are you or me. This > is > > > what you refuse to get. Year after year you go on insisting that you > > exist as > > > swirling neumonic debris or memory or some such nonsense. No you > don't. > > > None of that has any existence. > > > > The two of you are using the word " you " differently. > > > > It's a matter of semantics and context. > > > > Such a dialogue can't produce a coherent mutually shared context. > > > > Which is typical of so many dialogues. > > > > And that is fine. > > > > Truth isn't a product of a mutually shared context, nor is truth a > > mutually shared context. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > ****In this case, I don't think it's just a matter of semantics and > > context. It's not like we both agree there is a 'vehicle' of > perception, and then > > that which is aware of this vehicle and more fundamental. It's not like > I > > happen to be talking about one and Toom happens to be talking about the > > > other. He doesn't accept the existence of a perceiver (what he > sarcastically > > calls " Big Self " ), and so to him 'you', 'I', 'me', always point to the > same > > swirling cloud of neumonic debris that doesn't exist. > > > > Toom is playing the neti-neti game of 'I don't exist', and the better > he > > gets at the game, the more he prooves himself a liar. The only way out > for > > some players is to construct a mental void into which they can banish > > themselves. Been there, done that, and it's not the least bit pleasant. > > There is only One here. > > Only One being aware. > > That One is not a numerical one. > > There is nothing it could be aware of, that is not of itself, and is not > itself in a form able to be formed. > > This One is None, because there is nothing to compare it with, no quality > to ascribe to it, including the quality of being, or existing or not > existing. > > This One forming as human, being aware of the human being aware, has never > been spoken of by the human. Has never been conceptualized. Has never > been touched. > > No human being has ever gotten what this is, nor ever could, nor would > ever need to. > > One is aware as this. > > Without any remark about it having formed. > > The words appearing here are no different than any other phenomena. > > They are apprehended through what Nisargadatta refers to as human > consciousness. > > As he says, the consciousness dissolves with the body. > > One is aware. > > This body typing and registering patterns that appear on a computer screen > is itself an appearance. > > -- Dan > > > > ****Rojer that. > I might have missed your point, though. I thought we were talking about > whether Toom and I were referring to the same 'you'. Or were you somehow > referencing the neti-neti thingy? My point is that your analysis of what Toom is doing is a concoction, a construction, formed by interpreting words appearing on a screen. At this moment of reading these words, there is only one awareness. It is not a numerical one. It is not singular by virtue of being different than many. Many-ness and one-ness and none-ness are This. Which has no quality. This awareness is not only what reads these words, but what forms these words as words. It is perceiver/perceived with no separation, no distance. And is constructing space/time through us, those who read and develop thought-forms about other readers. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > Dan, > > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I am > aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of anything. > > > ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware of > stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present. Only the mind > can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of thought is > an illusion created by the thoughts. Well-observed, Phil. And funny! This " something other " of which you speak can have no name or location. We use the term " awareness " because that term represents " what is not the object. " But any assumptions about a quality of awareness, a location for it, etc., are thought-constructed. Even the name, by virtue of being a name, involves thought associations. Because " something other than thought " can't be positioned, it has no inside or outside. Thus, it can't be positioned " outside " of things, nor inside of anything. Therefore, it is consistent with all things. This " other " is not-two with all perceptions, yet has never been perceived, includes all forms, yet has never been formed, is equally all experiences, yet has never been experienced. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:29:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > dan330033@ writes: > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 9:32:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > > dan330033@ writes: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ****My grandmother was never 'here', and neither are you or me. This > > is > > > > what you refuse to get. Year after year you go on insisting that you > > > exist as > > > > swirling neumonic debris or memory or some such nonsense. No you > > don't. > > > > None of that has any existence. > > > > > > The two of you are using the word " you " differently. > > > > > > It's a matter of semantics and context. > > > > > > Such a dialogue can't produce a coherent mutually shared context. > > > > > > Which is typical of so many dialogues. > > > > > > And that is fine. > > > > > > Truth isn't a product of a mutually shared context, nor is truth a > > > mutually shared context. > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > ****In this case, I don't think it's just a matter of semantics and > > > context. It's not like we both agree there is a 'vehicle' of > > perception, and then > > > that which is aware of this vehicle and more fundamental. It's not like > > I > > > happen to be talking about one and Toom happens to be talking about the > > > > > other. He doesn't accept the existence of a perceiver (what he > > sarcastically > > > calls " Big Self " ), and so to him 'you', 'I', 'me', always point to the > > same > > > swirling cloud of neumonic debris that doesn't exist. > > > > > > Toom is playing the neti-neti game of 'I don't exist', and the better > > he > > > gets at the game, the more he prooves himself a liar. The only way out > > for > > > some players is to construct a mental void into which they can banish > > > themselves. Been there, done that, and it's not the least bit pleasant. > > > > There is only One here. > > > > Only One being aware. > > > > That One is not a numerical one. > > > > There is nothing it could be aware of, that is not of itself, and is not > > itself in a form able to be formed. > > > > This One is None, because there is nothing to compare it with, no quality > > to ascribe to it, including the quality of being, or existing or not > > existing. > > > > This One forming as human, being aware of the human being aware, has never > > been spoken of by the human. Has never been conceptualized. Has never > > been touched. > > > > No human being has ever gotten what this is, nor ever could, nor would > > ever need to. > > > > One is aware as this. > > > > Without any remark about it having formed. > > > > The words appearing here are no different than any other phenomena. > > > > They are apprehended through what Nisargadatta refers to as human > > consciousness. > > > > As he says, the consciousness dissolves with the body. > > > > One is aware. > > > > This body typing and registering patterns that appear on a computer screen > > is itself an appearance. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > ****Rojer that. > > I might have missed your point, though. I thought we were talking about > > whether Toom and I were referring to the same 'you'. Or were you somehow > > referencing the neti-neti thingy? > > My point is that your analysis of what Toom is doing is a concoction, a construction, formed by interpreting words appearing on a screen. > > At this moment of reading these words, there is only one awareness. > > It is not a numerical one. > > It is not singular by virtue of being different than many. > > Many-ness and one-ness and none-ness are This. > > Which has no quality. > > This awareness is not only what reads these words, but what forms these words as words. > > It is perceiver/perceived with no separation, no distance. > > And is constructing space/time through us, those who read and develop thought-forms about other readers. > > -- Dan it's the doer done.. the doner doer.. the pickle on your hamburger.. the bugs on your burger.. the viruses on the bugs.. and it's all all together together in.. thought forms and times of space and stuff.. god talking like this is catchy stuff. aren't you big time impressed? LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > wwoehr@ writes: > > > > Dan, > > > > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I am > > aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of anything. > > > > > > ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware of > > stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present. Only the mind > > can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of thought is > > an illusion created by the thoughts. > > Well-observed, Phil. > > And funny! > > This " something other " of which you speak can have no name or location. > > We use the term " awareness " because that term represents " what is not the object. " But any assumptions about a quality of awareness, a location for it, etc., are thought-constructed. Even the name, by virtue of being a name, involves thought associations. > > Because " something other than thought " can't be positioned, it has no inside or outside. > > Thus, it can't be positioned " outside " of things, nor inside of anything. > > Therefore, it is consistent with all things. > > This " other " is not-two with all perceptions, yet has never been perceived, includes all forms, yet has never been formed, is equally all experiences, yet has never been experienced. > > > -- Dan well said boys. nice mutual admiration society guys. and all of it's true! except on thursday afternoons. that's when the unexperienced non experiencer.. gets unexperienceder than before. and this is consistent with all the other bullshit. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 2:48:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > wwoehr@ writes: > > > > Dan, > > > > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I > am > > aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of > anything. > > > > > > ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware > > stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present. > > > There is no awareness of stuff, Phil. There only is consciousness which is > its content. > > The moment there is awareness of stuff it is thought which says to be > aware of stuff.y > > > > Only the mind > > can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of > thought is > > an illusion created by the thoughts. > > > > > Sorry Phil, read again what I wrote. I wrote that to be aware OF something > is an illusion created by thought because originally there is no awareness > OF something. > > In different words, there is only awarenes which IS that something. The > > OF <, and therefore the separation between awareness and that something is > introduced by thought. > > You got it ? There is no OF ... > > Werner > > > > ****Right. Ultimately, there is just Awareness arising as thought or > feeling or object or whatever. That's what IS. That's what I,you,we are. > > > Is that what you think? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 2:48:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > wwoehr@ writes: > > > > Dan, > > > > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I > am > > aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of > anything. > > > > > > ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware > > stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present. > > > There is no awareness of stuff, Phil. There only is consciousness which is > its content. > > The moment there is awareness of stuff it is thought which says to be > aware of stuff.y > > > > Only the mind > > can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of > thought is > > an illusion created by the thoughts. > > > > > Sorry Phil, read again what I wrote. I wrote that to be aware OF something > is an illusion created by thought because originally there is no awareness > OF something. > > In different words, there is only awarenes which IS that something. The > > OF <, and therefore the separation between awareness and that something is > introduced by thought. > > You got it ? There is no OF ... > > Werner > > > > ****Right. Ultimately, there is just Awareness arising as thought or > feeling or object or whatever. That's what IS. That's what I,you,we are. ultimately the ultimate " best " is when (in the illusion of time).. Awareness arises as whatever. that's way cool. i know. i've been there done that thought that spoke that.. hell I am that. I'm Here to tell " you " NOW. but it's beyond understanding. except for me. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 In a message dated 5/27/2009 6:22:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dan330033 writes: Nisargadatta , "roberibus111" <Roberibus111 wrote:>> Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor@> wrote:> >> > > > - > > Tim G.> > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM> > Re: Perceiving> > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , "dan330033" <dan330033@> wrote:> > >> > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ?> > >> > > No, not at all.> > >> > > What leads you to ask that?> > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to "now" > > is a matter of curiosity here.> > > > Why would reality turn inside out?> > > > geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining to the > > dream - only the end.> > > > if there is no beginning..there is no end.> > if there were..> > it could be turned around.> > the end would then be the beginning that's all.> > .b b.b.its end is in its beginning; its beginning is in its end.it ends as it begins.beginninglessly and endlessly.-- D. ***It's just happening now. That's all. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 9:32:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > dan330033@ writes: > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > ****My grandmother was never 'here', and neither are you or me. This is > > > what you refuse to get. Year after year you go on insisting that you > > exist as > > > swirling neumonic debris or memory or some such nonsense. No you don't. > > > None of that has any existence. > > > > The two of you are using the word " you " differently. > > > > It's a matter of semantics and context. > > > > Such a dialogue can't produce a coherent mutually shared context. > > > > Which is typical of so many dialogues. > > > > And that is fine. > > > > Truth isn't a product of a mutually shared context, nor is truth a > > mutually shared context. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > ****In this case, I don't think it's just a matter of semantics and > > context. It's not like we both agree there is a 'vehicle' of perception, and then > > that which is aware of this vehicle and more fundamental. It's not like I > > happen to be talking about one and Toom happens to be talking about the > > other. He doesn't accept the existence of a perceiver (what he sarcastically > > calls " Big Self " ), and so to him 'you', 'I', 'me', always point to the same > > swirling cloud of neumonic debris that doesn't exist. > > > > Toom is playing the neti-neti game of 'I don't exist', and the better he > > gets at the game, the more he prooves himself a liar. The only way out for > > some players is to construct a mental void into which they can banish > > themselves. Been there, done that, and it's not the least bit pleasant. > > There is only One here. > > Only One being aware. > > That One is not a numerical one. > > There is nothing it could be aware of, that is not of itself, and is not itself in a form able to be formed. > > This One is None, because there is nothing to compare it with, no quality to ascribe to it, including the quality of being, or existing or not existing. > > This One forming as human, being aware of the human being aware, has never been spoken of by the human. Has never been conceptualized. Has never been touched. > > No human being has ever gotten what this is, nor ever could, nor would ever need to. > > One is aware as this. > > Without any remark about it having formed. > > The words appearing here are no different than any other phenomena. > > They are apprehended through what Nisargadatta refers to as human consciousness. > > As he says, the consciousness dissolves with the body. > > One is aware. > > This body typing and registering patterns that appear on a computer screen is itself an appearance. > > -- Dan Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > This " other " is not-two with all perceptions, yet has never been > perceived, includes all forms, yet has never been formed, is equally > all experiences, yet has never been experienced. > > > -- Dan You said " things move without moving " in a prior discussion we had. It seems here " it moves " is the space-time continuum, and " without moving " is " this other " . As long as " it moves without moving " , there must be separation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 9:32:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > > dan330033@ writes: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ****My grandmother was never 'here', and neither are you or me. This is > > > > what you refuse to get. Year after year you go on insisting that you > > > exist as > > > > swirling neumonic debris or memory or some such nonsense. No you don't. > > > > None of that has any existence. > > > > > > The two of you are using the word " you " differently. > > > > > > It's a matter of semantics and context. > > > > > > Such a dialogue can't produce a coherent mutually shared context. > > > > > > Which is typical of so many dialogues. > > > > > > And that is fine. > > > > > > Truth isn't a product of a mutually shared context, nor is truth a > > > mutually shared context. > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > ****In this case, I don't think it's just a matter of semantics and > > > context. It's not like we both agree there is a 'vehicle' of perception, and then > > > that which is aware of this vehicle and more fundamental. It's not like I > > > happen to be talking about one and Toom happens to be talking about the > > > other. He doesn't accept the existence of a perceiver (what he sarcastically > > > calls " Big Self " ), and so to him 'you', 'I', 'me', always point to the same > > > swirling cloud of neumonic debris that doesn't exist. > > > > > > Toom is playing the neti-neti game of 'I don't exist', and the better he > > > gets at the game, the more he prooves himself a liar. The only way out for > > > some players is to construct a mental void into which they can banish > > > themselves. Been there, done that, and it's not the least bit pleasant. > > > > There is only One here. > > > > Only One being aware. > > > > That One is not a numerical one. > > > > There is nothing it could be aware of, that is not of itself, and is not itself in a form able to be formed. > > > > This One is None, because there is nothing to compare it with, no quality to ascribe to it, including the quality of being, or existing or not existing. > > > > This One forming as human, being aware of the human being aware, has never been spoken of by the human. Has never been conceptualized. Has never been touched. > > > > No human being has ever gotten what this is, nor ever could, nor would ever need to. > > > > One is aware as this. > > > > Without any remark about it having formed. > > > > The words appearing here are no different than any other phenomena. > > > > They are apprehended through what Nisargadatta refers to as human consciousness. > > > > As he says, the consciousness dissolves with the body. > > > > One is aware. > > > > This body typing and registering patterns that appear on a computer screen is itself an appearance. > > > > -- Dan > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? No, not at all. What leads you to ask that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > No, not at all. > > What leads you to ask that? The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. Why would reality turn inside out? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
